■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
R6: Location R6 represents the proposed Hidden Canyon Industrial Building 2, approximately 305 feet east of the Project site. Receptor R6 is placed at the building facade.
R7: Location R7 represents the proposed Hidden Canyon Industrial Building 1, 467 feet east of the Project site. Receptor R7 is placed at the building facade.
D. Heath Risk Assessment Methodology
The HRA was prepared based on South Coast AQMD guidelines to produce conservative estimates of human health risk posed by exposure to DPM. Emissions calculations for the construction HRA component are based on an assumed mix of construction equipment and hauling activity as presented in the Project's Air Quality Analysis (Technical Appendix B1). Vehicle DPM emissions were calculated using emission factors for particulate matter less than 10µm in diameter (PMio) generated with the 2017 version of the EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) developed by the CARB. Emission factors calculated using EMFAC 2017 are expressed in units of grams per vehicle miles traveled (g/VMT) or grams per idle -hour (g/idle-hr), depending on the emission process. For this Project, annual average PMIo emission factors were generated by running EMFAC 2017 in EMFAC Mode for vehicles in the Riverside County jurisdiction. The EMFAC Mode generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of temperature, relative humidity, and vehicle speed. The model was run for speeds traveled in the vicinity of the Project. For purposes of this analysis, the Lakes AERMOD View (Version 10.2.0) was used to calculate annual average particulate concentrations associated with site operations. Refer to Section 2 of the Project's Health Risk Assessment (Technical Appendix B2) for a detailed description of HRA methodologies and for the model inputs and equations used in the estimation of the Project - related DPM emissions.
The modeled emission sources are illustrated on Figure 4.3-2, Modeled Emission Source. The modeling domain is limited to the Project's primary truck route and includes off -site sources in the study area for more than 1 mile. This modeling domain is more inclusive and conservative than using only a 1/4 mile modeling domain which is the distance supported by several reputable studies which conclude that the greatest potential risks occur within a 1/4 mile of the primary source of emissions (in the case of the Project, the primary source of emissions is the on -site idling and travel).
In order to account for the possibility of refrigerated uses, trucks associated with the potential cold - storage land use are assumed to also have TRUs. For modeling purposes 74 two-way truck trips have been estimated to include TRUs (e.g., all trucks trips that would be associated with up to 100,000 sf of High -Cube Cold Storage use, as summarized in the Project's Traffic Impact Analysis [Technical Appendix K1 to this EIR]). TRUs are accounted for during on -site and off -site travel. The TRU calculations are based on the 2017 Off -road Emissions model, version 1.0.1 (Orion), developed by the CARB. DPM TRU emissions are calculated at 0.226 grams per hour for on -site idling and off -site travel.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
For purposes of the HRA, receptors include both residential and non-residential (worker) land uses in the vicinity of the Project. These receptors are included in the HRA since residents and workers may be exposed at these locations over a long-term duration of 30 and 25 years, respectively. This methodology is consistent with South Coast AQMD and OEHHA recommended guidance. The South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) states that emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are considered significant if a HRA shows an increased risk of greater than 10 in one million.
Based on guidance from the South Coast AQMD in the document Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, for purposes of this analysis, 10 in one million is used as the cancer risk threshold for the proposed Project. An evaluation of the potential noncarcinogenic effects of chronic exposures was also conducted. Adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing a compound's annual concentration with its toxicity factor or Reference Exposure Level (REL). The REL for diesel particulates was obtained from OEHHA for this analysis. The chronic reference exposure level (REL) for DPM was established by OEHHA as 5µg/m3. Details on carcinogenic chemical risk and non -carcinogenic exposures are discussed in Section 2.5 and 2.6 of the Project's HRA (Technical Appendix B2).
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report
Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-19-2022)
Figure 4.3-1
immEnwErm
4.3 Air Quality
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AeroGRID, 1015, end the G15 User Community
Sensitive Receptor Locations
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
Source(s): Urban Crossroads (01-19-2022)
Figure 4.3-2
Modeled Emission Source
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
4.3.5 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, significance determinations utilized in this section are from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Section III of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines identified criteria used to assess whether a Project would result in a significant impact to Air Quality, and includes the following threshold questions to evaluate the Project's impacts on Air Quality. a. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Would the Project 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?
c. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The South Coast AQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for other regulated pollutants, as summarized in Table 4.3-5, Maximum Daily Regional Emission Thresholds. The South Coast AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. These thresholds have been used to determine air quality impacts in this analysis.
Table 4.3-5 Maximum Daily Regional Emission Thresholds
Pollutant
Regional Construction
Threshold (lbs/day)
Regional Operational
Thresholds (lbs/day)
NOx
100
55 VOC
75 55
PMI()
150
150
PM2.5
55 55
SOx
150
150
CO
550
550
Pb
3 3
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-1)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
4.3.6 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The South Coast AQMD's 2016 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the Project area, which estimates long-term air quality conditions for the SCAB. The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co -benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair -share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. Similar to the 2012 AQMP, the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS), a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements. The Project's consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2016 AQMP as discussed below.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook. These indicators are discussed below:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if LSTs or regional significance thresholds were exceeded. As evaluated under Thresholds b) and c) below, the Project's localized construction -source emissions would not exceed applicable LST thresholds after implementation. However, the Project's regional construction -source emissions would exceed the applicable regional thresholds for emissions of VOCs. As such, the the Project has the potential to result in a significant impact with respect to this criterion and the Project would have the potential to conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion, and could be potentially significant.
As evaluated under Thresholds b) and c) below, the Project would not exceed the LST thresholds for operational activity. However, the regional operational -source emissions are anticipated to exceed the regional thresholds of significance for VOC, CO, PM10, and PM2.s emissions and would not be reduced to less than significant with imposition of mitigation measures. As such, the Project has the potential to result in a significant impact with respect to this criterion and the Project would have the potential to conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion.
Based on the preceding, the Project is determined to be inconsistent with the first criterion and impacts would be potentially significant.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
• Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project build -out phase.
The 2016AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Beaumont General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.
Irrespective of the site's land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, since the Project would exceed applicable NOx regional emissions thresholds during construction activity, a significant impact would result.
The Project is proposed to consist of a maximum of 246,000 sf of general commercial uses in addition to a 125 -room hotel and a maximum of 4,995,000 sf of industrial uses. The Project would provide 124.7 acres of open space to accommodate landscaped manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, and natural open space as a buffer to adjacent conservation area and 152.4 acres of open space — conservation. The open space — conservation area would be preserved as natural habitat as required by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Associated improvements to the Project site would include, but are not limited to, paved roads, paved parking areas, drive aisles, truck courts, utility infrastructure, landscaping, water quality basins, signage, lighting, property walls, gates, and fencing, including perimeter fencing for the Project site.
Implementation of the Project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment. The General Plan Amendment would re -designate approximately 539.9 acres from "Rural Residential" to "General Commercial" (30.2 -acres), "Industrial" (232.6 -acres), "Open Space" (124.7 -acres), and "Open Space - Conservation." (152.4 -acres). Permitted uses within the "General Commercial" land use will include a wide range of recreation and entertainment, retail, restaurant, hotel, service -oriented land uses, and self -storage. Examples of recreation and entertainment uses may include indoor and/or outdoor go kart racing, rock climbing, trampoline park, bowling alley, and miniature golf. Allowable uses within the "Industrial" land use designation primarily include high -cube warehousing (warehouse/distribution center for the receipt, storage, cold storage and distribution of goods, products, supplies) and general light industrial. Other uses also permitted include but are not limited to manufacturing, distribution warehouses, e -commerce fulfillment, research services and laboratories, repair services, and various indoor recreational uses. Lastly, areas designated for "Open Space" uses would include landscaped, manufactured slopes, fuel modification areas, project signage, as well as the natural slopes which form a buffer between the Specific Plan's developed areas and the "Open Space — Conservation." Accordingly, the 2016 AQMP does not reflect the proposed land use designation for the Project site.
For this reason, there is the potential for the Project to exceed air quality impact assumptions in the Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
AQMP or increments based on the years of Project build -out phase. Consequently, the development of the Project is conservatively assumed to generate operational -source emissions not reflected within the current 2016 AQMP regional emissions inventory for the SCAB (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 68- 69).
Based on the preceding, the Project is determined to be inconsistent with the second criterion and impacts would be potentially significant.
Threshold b: Would the Project 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?
A. Construction Emissions Impact Analysis
Construction is expected to commence in May 2022 and will last through January 2027. The Project consists of grading (including blasting) of the Project site, construction of the proposed buildings, and eventual operation of the completed proposed buildings.
South Coast AQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings).
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized in Table 4.3- 6, Maximum Daily Peak Construction Emission Summary. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction will exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD for VOC and NOx during construction activity. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant.
Table 4.3-6 Maximum Daily Peak Construction Emission Summary Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
NOx
CO
SOx
PMio
PM2.5
Summer
2022
26.90 254.25
202.86
0.57 44.35
17.55 2023
84.22 331.31
371.23
2.47 111.06
34.56 2024
69.22 335.70
385.29
2.56 110.92
35.61 2025
120.39
318.45
416.97
2.64 114.64
36.36 2026
65.36 98.52
143.51
0.46 31.30
10.66 2027
64.75 60.45
72.56 0.21
11.28 4.56
Winter
2021
26.53 268.21
243.62
2.06 85.02
26.10 Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
NOx
CO
SOx
PMio
PM2.5
2022
83.42 333.70
350.44
11.79 111.06
34.56 2023
68.37 338.50
362.45
2.53 110.93
35.61 2024
119.56
321.22
393.54
2.61 114.65
36.36 2025
64.96 99.97
132.05
0.44 31.30
10.66 2026
64.63 60.90
69.09 0.20
11.28 4.56
Maximum Daily Emissions
120.39
338.50
416.97
11.79 114.65
36.36 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold
75 100
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-6)
8. Operational Emissions Impact Analysis
Ca1EEMod utilizes summer and winter EMFAC2017 emission factors in order to derive vehicle emissions associated with Project operational activities, which vary by season. As such, operational activities for summer and winter scenarios are presented in Table 4.3-7, Summary of Peak Operation Emissions. During Phase 1, the Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of NOx. During Phase 2, the Project will exceed the thresholds of significance for emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. During Phase 3, the Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance for emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant.
Table 4.3-7 Summary of Peak Operation Emissions
Phase
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
NOx
CO
SOx
PMio
PM2.5
Summer
Phase 1 (2023)
Area Source
31.50 3.96E-03
0.43 3.00E-05
1.55E-03
1.55E-03
Energy Source
0.23 2.08
1.75 0.01
0.16 0.16
Mobile Source
11.35 126.74
127.47
0.93 50.46
14.85 TRUs
0.89 9.98
13.04 0.00
0.08 0.07
On -Site Equipment
0.55 5.18
3.75 0.02
0.19 0.17
Total Maximum Daily Emissions
(Phase 1)
44.52 143.99
146.45
0.96 50.89
15.25 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
Phase 2 (2025)
Area Source
114.31
0.01 1.60
1.20E-04
5.69E-03
5.69E-03
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
Phase
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
NOx
CO
SOx
PMio
PM2.;
Energy Source
0.89 8.11
6.81 0.05
0.62 0.62
Mobile Source
42.75 429.10
475.99
3.23 193.74
56.50 TRUs
0.89 9.98
13.07 0.00
0.08 0.07
On -Site Equipment
1.81 14.50
13.46 0.06
0.56 0.51
Total Maximum Daily Emissions
(Phase 2)
160.65
461.71
510.92
3.34 195.00
57.71 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
Phase 3 (2027)
Area Source
123.16
0.02 1.73
1.30E-04
6.15E-03
6.15E-03
Energy Source
1.61 14.65
12.31 0.09
1.11 1.11
Mobile Source
60.86 430.87
610.28
3.45 234.68
67.53 TRUs
0.88 9.97
13.03 0.00
0.08 0.07
On -Site Equipment
1.81 14.50
13.46 0.06
0.56 0.51
Total Maximum Daily Emissions
(Phase 3)
188.63
470.01
650.80
3.60 236.44
69.23 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
Winter
Phase 1 (2023)
Area Source
31.50 3.96E-03
0.43 3.00E-
05 1.55E-
03 1.55E-03
Energy Source
0.23 2.08
1.75 0.01
0.16 0.16
Mobile Source
10.05 133.84
114.49
0.91 50.46
14.85 TRUs
0.89 9.98
13.04 0.00
0.08 0.07
On -Site Equipment
0.55 5.18
3.75 0.02
0.19 0.17
Total Maximum Daily Emissions
(Phase 11
43.22 151.09
133.46
0.94 50.89
15.25 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
Phase 2 (2025)
Area Source
114.31
0.01 1.60
1.20E-
04 5.69E-
03 5.69E-03
Energy Source
0.89 8.11
6.81 0.05
0.62 0.62
Mobile Source
37.79 453.19
427.59
3.16 193.75
56.51 TRUs
0.89 9.98
13.07 0.00
0.08 0.07
On -Site Equipment
1.81 14.50
13.46 0.06
0.56 0.51
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
Phase
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
NOx
CO
SOx
PMio
PM2.s
Total Maximum Daily Emissions
(Phase 2)
155.69
485.80
462.53
3.27 195.00
57.71 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
Phase 3 (2027)
Area Source
123.16
0.02 1.73
1.30E-
04 6.15E-
03 6.15E-03
Energy Source
1.61 14.65
12.31 0.09
1.11 1.11
Mobile Source
52.49 455.28
551.67
3.36 234.68
67.53 TRUs
0.88 9.97
13.03 0.00
0.08 0.07
On -Site Equipment
1.81 14.50
13.46 0.06
0.56 0.51
Total Maximum Daily Emissions
(Phase 3)
179.96
494.43
592.19
3.51 236.44
69.23 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold
55 55
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-10)
C. Potential Overlap of Construction and Operational Activity Based on the assumed construction and buildout schedule of the Project, there is potential for overlap between construction and operational activity. The preceding analysis of the construction emissions and operational emissions was completed pursuant to the South Coast AQMD 1993 CEQA Handbook which details parameters to quantify construction and operation emissions separately and compare each to the applicable construction and operational thresholds of significance. South Coast AQMD has not developed or published a combined construction and operational emission significance threshold.
Combining the construction emissions with the operational emissions will present a maximum daily emission representing peak building construction activity and operational activity, a worst -case scenario that may not occur.
As such, peak construction (2025 Construction Emissions) and operational emissions (Phase 2) that have the potential to overlap, have been totaled to show the theoretical overlap of the construction and operational activities. It should be noted that the South Coast AQMD does not have different thresholds for overlapping activities, rather the South Coast AQMD has separate thresholds for construction activity and operational activity. As such, the potential emissions from overlapping construction and operational activity shown in Table 4.3-8,
Potential Overlap of Construction and Operational Activity, are provided for informational purposes only.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
Table 4.3-8 Potential Overlap of Construction and Operational Activity Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
NOx
CO
SOx
PM10
PM2.5
Summer
2025 Construction Emissions
34.12 189.40
470.25
2.61 114.70
32.50 Phase 2 Operational Emissions
160.65
461.71
510.92
3.34 195.00
57.71 Total Maximum Daily Emissions
194.77
651.11
981.17
5.95 309.70
90.21 Winter
2025 Construction Emissions
34.12 189.40
470.25
2.61 114.70
32.50 Phase 2 Operational Emissions
155.69
485.80
462.53
3.27 195.00
57.71 Total Maximum Daily Emissions
189.83
675.20
932.78
5.88 309.70
90.21 Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-11)
Threshold c: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? A. Construction Localized Emissions Impact Analysis
Table 4.3-9,
Localized Significant Summary - Construction, identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is disclosed herein. As shown in 0, Project -related construction emissions would not exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD LSTs for CO, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5 at the maximally impacted receptor location. All other modeled locations in the study area would experience a lesser concentration and consequently a lesser impact.
Accordingly, construction of the Project would not result in the exposure of any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, localized emissions from construction of the Project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to Threshold c. Refer to Section 3.6 of the Project's Air Quality Analysis (Technical Appendix B1 to this EIR) for a detailed explanation of the model inputs and equations used in the analysis of construction -related localized emissions.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
Table 4.3-9 Localized Significant Summary - Construction Peak Construction
CO
NO.
PMio
PM2.5
Averaging Time
1 -Hour
8 -Hour
1 -Hour
24 -Hours
24 -Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions
0.03 0.01
0.01 0.48
0.16 Background Concentration A
2.6 2.4
0.06 Total Concentration
2.63 2.41
0.07 0.48
0.16 South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Threshold
20 9
0.18 10.4
10.4 Threshold Exceeded?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A Highest concentration from the last three years of available data.
Note: PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in µg/m3. All others are expressed in ppm Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-12)
2. DPM Source Cancer and Non -Cancer Risks Impact Analysis The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction DPM source emissions is Location R4, which represents the existing residence at 14157 Bosana Lane, approximately 1,151 feet north of the Project site. At this MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at 0.47 in one million, which is less than the South Coast AQMD's significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non -cancer health risks were estimated to be < 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to people in adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity. All other receptors during construction activity (even if they are located at a nearer distance to the site) would experience less risk than what is identified for the MEIR due to modeled meteorological conditions, source locations, and relative spatial distance from emission sources to other receptor locations. Detailed analysis for construction DPM emissions can be found in the Project's HRA (Technical Appendix B2).
B. Operation Localized Emissions Impact Analysis
1. Criteria Pollutant Emissions
The LST analysis generally includes on -site sources (area, energy, mobile, and on -site cargo handling equipment). However, it should be noted that the Ca1EEMod outputs do not separate on -site and off - site emissions from mobile sources. As such, to establish a maximum potential impact scenario for analytic purposes, the modeled emissions include all on -site Project -related stationary (area) sources and 5% of the Project -related mobile sources. Applying the trip length applied in the Ca1EEMod analysis for the Project (approximately 17.54 miles for passenger cars and 40.0 miles for all trucks), 5% of this total would represent an on -site travel distance of approximately 0.9 mile/4,631 feet for passenger cars and 2 miles/10,560 feet for trucks. It should be noted that the longest on -site distance is roughly 0.5 miles for both trucks and passenger cars. As such, the 5% assumption is conservative and would tend to overstate the actual impact because it is not likely that every single passenger car would drive 0.9 mile on the site or that every truck would drive 2 miles on the site.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
Table 4.3-10, Localized Significant Summary — Operation, presents the results of the LST analysis for long-term operation of the Project. As shown, operational emissions would not exceed the South Coast AQMD's LSTs at the maximally impacted receptor location. All other modeled locations in the study area would experience a lesser concentration and consequently a lesser impact. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant localized impact during operational activity.
Table 4.3-10 Localized Significant Summary — Operation
Peak Construction
CO
NO2
PMio
PM2.5
Averaging Time
1 -Hour
8 -Hour
1 -Hour
24 -Hours
24 -Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions
0.009
0.004
0.02 0.86
0.22 Background Concentration A
2.6 2.4
0.06 Total Concentration
2.6 2.4
0.11 0.86
0.22 South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Threshold
20 9
0.18 2.5
2.5 Threshold Exceeded?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A Highest concentration from the last three years of available data.
Note: PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in µg/m3. All others are expressed in ppm Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-13)
2. CO Hot Spot Impact Analysis
The Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or "hot spots." Further, detailed modeling of Project -specific CO "hot spots" is not needed to reach this conclusion. An adverse CO concentration, known as a "hot spot", would occur if an exceedance of the state one -hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.
It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment.
To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO "hot spot" analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This "hot spot" analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards. For example, 8.4 ppm 8 -hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the "hot spot" analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared. In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a "hot spot", would occur if an exceedance of the state one -hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight -hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
The ambient 1 -hr and 8 -hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 2.0 ppm and 1.3 ppm, respectively (data from Hemet/San Jacinto Valley station for 2019). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed Project were double or even triple of the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection, coupled with the on -going improvements in ambient air quality, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO "hot spot" at any study area intersections.
Furthermore, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concluded that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph)—or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix —in order to generate a significant CO impact. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Blvd and Veteran Ave., which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day and AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively. The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1 -hour concentration for this intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4= 18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1 - hour CO standard (20.0 ppm).
The highest trips on a segment of road for the Project (Opening Year 2023) during AM and PM traffic is 2,433 vph on Beaumont Avenue/Interstate 10 (I-10) Eastbound Ramps and 3,156 vph on Potrero Boulevard/I-10 Eastbound Ramps, respectively. The highest trips on a segment of road for the proposed Project (Opening Year 2025) during AM and PM traffic is 2,531 vph on Beaumont Avenue/I- 10 Eastbound Ramps and 3,254 vph on Potrero Boulevard/I-10 Eastbound Ramps, respectively. The highest trips on a segment of road for the proposed Project (Buildout Year 2027) during AM and PM traffic is 3,412 vph and 4,187 vph on Potrero Boulevard/I-10 Eastbound Ramps, respectively. As such, Project -related traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP. The proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO "hot spot" either in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations. Therefore, CO "hot spots" are not an environmental impact of concern for the Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile -source emissions would therefore be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would result in less -than -significant impacts related to the creation of CO Hot Spots.
3. DPM Source Cancer and Non -Cancer Risks Impact Analysis Individual Exposure Scenario
The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM source emissions is Location R4, which represents the existing residence at 14157 Bosana Lane, approximately 1,151 feet north of the Project site. At this MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at 0.86 in one million, which is less than the South Coast AQMD's significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non -cancer health risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences. All other Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
receptors during operational activity (even if they are located at a nearer distance to the site) would experience less concentration and consequently less risk than what is identified for the MEIR due to modeled meteorological conditions, source locations, and relative spatial distance from emission sources to other receptor locations. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 1) A detailed analysis of Individual Exposure Scenario for construction and operational DPM emissions can be found in the HRA, Technical Appendix B2.
Worker Exposure Scenario
The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project DPM source emissions is Location R6, which represents the Hidden Canyon Industrial Building 2, approximately 305 feet east of the Project site. R6 is placed at the building facade where a worker could remain for a typical workday. At the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.23 in one million which is less than the South Coast AQMD's threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non -cancer health risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers. All other receptors during operational activity (even if they are located at a nearer distance to the site) would experience less concentration and consequently less risk than what is identified for the MEIW due to modeled meteorological conditions, source locations, and relative spatial distance from emission sources to other receptor locations (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 2).
School Child Exposure Scenario
There are no schools located within 1A mile of the Project site. As such, there would be no significant impacts that would occur to any schools in the vicinity of the Project. Proximity to sources of toxics is critical to determining the impact. In traffic -related studies, the additional non -cancer health risk attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70% drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) and South Coast AQMD emissions and modeling analyses, an 80% drop-off in pollutant concentrations is expected at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center. The 1,000 -foot evaluation distance is supported by research -based findings concerning TAC emission dispersion rates from roadways and large sources showing that emissions diminish substantially between 500 and 1,000 feet from emission sources. For purposes of this assessment, a one -quarter mile radius or 1,320 feet geographic scope is utilized for determining potential impacts to nearby schools. This radius is more robust than, and therefore provides a more health protective scenario for evaluation than the 1,000 -foot impact radius identified above.
Combined Construction and Operational Impacts
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction and operational DPM source emissions is Location R4. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction and operational DPM source emissions is estimated at 1.33 in one million, which is less than the threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non -cancer health risks were estimated to be < 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
and operational activity. All other receptors during operational activity (even if they are located at a nearer distance to the site) would experience less concentration and consequently less risk than what is identified for the MEIR due to modeled meteorological conditions, source locations, and relative spatial distance from emission sources to other receptor locations (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 2).
C. Potential Health Impacts of The Project
The potential impact of Project -generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project will not exceed the South Coast AQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction.
Additionally, the Project will not exceed the South Coast AQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Further, Project traffic would not create or result in a CO "hotspot." Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.
However, as described in Table 4.3-7, the Project would exceed the South Coast AQMD's significance threshold with respect to VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 from operational emissions and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Likewise, the Project would not be consistent with elements of the 2016 AQMP.
If a project in the SCAB exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until such time the attainment standard are met in the SCAB.
The project exceeds the emissions in Table 4.3-7 for the following: VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5.
These emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment status and would contribute to elevating health effects associated to these criteria air pollutants. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Health effects associated with particulate matter include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Because of the relatively small amount of emissions from the Project relative to regional - wide emissions, it would be speculative to assess whether or the extent to which the project would contribute to adverse health effects. Even though South Coast AQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, South Coast AQMD has not provided methodology, and modeling does not currently exist, to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated, cumulative increases from individual projects, and the effect on health or even to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds by small amounts would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment. South Coast AQMD staff has not and does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify 03 -related health impacts caused by NOx or VOC emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Similarly, CARB methodology has reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. For these reasons, mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or how many additional individuals in the air basin would be affected Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
by the health effects cited above. In contrast, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed Project), the South Coast AQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources — as part of their rulemaking activity, specifically 6,620 lbs./day of NOx and 89,180 lbs./day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to 03.
The Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 lbs/day of NOx or 89,190 lbs/day of VOC emissions. The Project would generate up to 189.40 lbs/day of NOx during construction and 494.43 lbs/day of NOx during operations (2.86% and 7.47% of 6,620 lbs/day, respectively). Additionally, the Project would also generate a maximum of 34.96 lbs/day of VOC emissions during construction and 179.96 lbs/day of VOC emissions during operations (0.04% and 0.20% of 89,190 lbs/day, respectively). Therefore, the Project's emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin -wide level.
In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch) (2018) 6 Ca1.5th 502, Case No. S21978, the California Supreme Court found that the EIR for the proposed Friant Ranch project failed to adequately analyze the project's air quality impacts on human health where project -related mass emissions would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's regional significance thresholds. The Court found that EIRs for projects must not only identify impacts to human health, but also provide an "analysis of the correlation between the project's emissions and human health impacts" related to each criteria air pollutant that exceeds the regional significance thresholds or explain why it could not make such a connection. The EIR failed to do either and therefore did not comply with CEQA. As stated above, it is not possible to determine a direct correlation between the small amount by which the Project exceeds thresholds of significance for VOCs, NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 and health effects that are generally linked to these emissions. Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground -level ozone concentrations in relation to the National AAQS and California AAQS, and the absence of modeling that allows for specific health -emissions correlations for an air basin from small projects such as this, it is not feasible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds.
Threshold d: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors.
Potential odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The Project would be Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
subject to standard construction requirements, including the use of low-VOC architectural coatings as required by South Coast AQMD Rule 113, Table of Standards; compliance with low sulfur fuel requirements pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 431.2, Low Sulfur Fuel; and compliance with South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which requires that a person shall not discharge air contaminants or other materials that would cause health or safety hazards to any considerable number of persons or the public. Compliance with these standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than significant.
Potential sources of operational odors generated by the Project would include disposal of commercial and industrial refuse and the use of diesel equipment. It is expected that Project -generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with City of Beaumont's solid waste regulations, thereby precluding substantial generation of odors due to temporary holding of refuse on site. Additionally, the Project includes the construction of a sewer lift station, however the location of the sewer lift station, which is located more than 1/4 mile or 1,320 feet from the nearest residential land use, would not result in the potential odor source affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed Project also would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project operations would not adversely affect a substantial number of people, and Project impacts during long- term operations would be less than significant
4.3.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
With exception of the issue of odors, the cumulative study area for air quality includes the City of Beaumont and the SCAB. The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for State standards of 03, PM10, and PM2.5. The region is also designated as a nonattainment area for federal standards of 03 and PM2.5. Cumulative growth in population, vehicle use, and industrial activity could inhibit efforts to improve regional air quality and attain the ambient air quality standards. Thus, with exception of odors, the setting for this cumulative analysis consists of the SCAB and associated growth and development anticipated in the air basin. For the issue of odors, the cumulative study area includes the Project site and lands in close proximity to the Project site, as odors diminish rapidly with distance from the source
According to South Coast AQMD, projects that exceed the project -specific significance thresholds are considered by the South Coast AQMD to be cumulatively considerable. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project -specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.
The Project would exceed the Project -specific significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts with regard to those thresholds would be cumulatively considerable.
As previously shown in Table 4.3-6, Maximum Daily Peak Construction Emission Summary, construction activities associated with the Project would exceed established by the South Coast AQMD for VOC and NOx. However, as discussed below, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
4.3-1, Project construction -source emissions of VOCs would be reduced to less than significant levels and NO„ would remain significant and unavoidable. Accordingly, impacts associated with Project - related construction emissions would be significant and cumulatively considerable.
As previously shown in Table 4.3-7, Summary of Peak Operation Emissions, Project operation -source emissions would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional thresholds of significance for emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, impacts associated with Project -related operational emissions would be significant and cumulatively considerable.
As previously shown in Table 4.3-9,
Localized Significant Summary - Construction, emissions would not exceed the South Coast AQMD Localized Threshold for CO, NOX, PM10, or PM2.s. Pursuant to the South Coast AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds, projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant impact; therefore, the Project's emissions during construction would be less than significant on a direct and cumulative basis.
As previously shown in Table 4.3-10, Localized Significant Summary — Operation, under long-term operating conditions, the Project's localized operational emissions would not exceed any of the South Coast AQMD LST thresholds. Pursuant to the South Coast AQMD's CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds, the Project would have a less -than -cumulatively considerable LST impact during long- term operation. Additionally, the Project would have no potential to result in or contribute to a CO "Hot Spot." Accordingly, impacts associated with CO "Hot Spots" would be less than cumulatively considerable.
4.3.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Potentially Significant Impact. The Project would result in and cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. The Project would require a General Plan Amendment. Furthermore, the Project would exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds. As such, the Project is therefore considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP and a potentially significant impact would occur.
Threshold b: Potentially Significant Impact. The Project -specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that Project construction -source and operation -source air pollutant emissions would result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, Project construction -source and operation -source emissions would be considered potentially significant on a project -specific and cumulative basis for those emissions.
Threshold c: Less -than -Significant Impact. Project emissions during construction and operation would not exceed the South Coast AQMD's LSTs for CO, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5. Non -cancer risks would also be below the South Coast AQMD's threshold for direct and cumulatively considerable emissions and Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
would be less than significant. Emissions also would not exceed LSTs and would not cause or contribute to a CO "Hot Spot."
Threshold d: Less -than -Significant Impact. Although short-term construction activities and long-term operational land uses could produce objectionable odors, compliance with standard construction requirements and regulations established by the City of Beaumont and South Coast AQMD would reduce odor impacts to less -than -significant levels. Near- and long-term odor impacts would be less than significant.
4.3.9 MITIGATION
MM 4.3-1
MM 4.3-2
MM 4.3-3
The Project shall utilize "Super -Compliant" low VOC paints for nonresidential interior and exterior surfaces and low VOC paint for parking lot surfaces. Super -Compliant low VOC paints have been reformulated to be more stringent than the regulatory VOC limits put forth by South Coast AQMD's Rule 1113. Super- Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Alternatively, the applicant may utilize tilt -up concrete buildings that do not require the use of architectural coatings.
Prior to the start of construction activities, the project applicant, or its designee, shall ensure that all 50 -horsepower or greater diesel -powered equipment is powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB)-certified Tier 4 Final engines, except where the project applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the City of Beaumont (City) that Tier 4 Final equipment is not available. An exemption from these requirements may be granted by the City if the City documents that equipment with the required tier is not reasonably available and corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions are achieved from other construction equipment to the extent feasible. Before an exemption may be considered by the City, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate that two construction fleet owners/operators in Riverside County were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Final equipment could not be located within Riverside County. In order to meet this requirement to demonstrate that such equipment is not available, the Project Applicant must seek bids/proposals from contractors of large fleets, defined by the California Air Resources Board as, "A fleet with a total max hp (as defined below) greater than 5,000 hp." In addition, this should not be limited to Riverside County but statewide. In the event that Tier 4 Final equipment is not feasible, then Tier 4 interim equipment shall be required. In the event that Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available, Tier 3 equipment shall be used. All construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
All on -site outdoor cargo -handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and other on -site equipment) shall be electric or non -diesel fueled. All on -site indoor forklifts shall be powered by electricity.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
MM 4.3-4
MM 4.3-5
MM 4.3-6
Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB anti -idling regulations.
At a minimum, each sign shall include: 1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than five (5) minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to "neutral" or "park," and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the City shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.
Prior to tenant occupancy, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the Project site have been provided documentation on funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleaner -than -required engines and equipment.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the industrial/warehouse buildings, the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
• Provide a transportation information center and on -site TDM coordinator to educate employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options. • Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the project site. • Provide secure bicycle storage space equivalent to 2% of the automobile parking spaces provided.
• Provide on -site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day.
• Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ride -matching service. • Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users.
• Provide meal options on -site or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
• Each building shall provide preferred parking for electric, low -emitting and fuel - efficient vehicles equivalent to at least 8% of the required number of parking spaces.
MM 4.3-7
MM 4.3-8
MM 4.3-9
MM 4.3-10
For the warehouse/industrial portion of the Project, the buildings' electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site.
Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric -powered engines.
The buildings' electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed in the future to supply power to trailers with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) during the loading/unloading of refrigerated goods. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to the loading docks determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check as the logical location(s) to receive trailers with TRUs.
Final Project designs shall provide for installation of conduit in tractor trailer parking areas for the purpose of accommodating potential installation of EV truck charging stations.
All truck/dock bays that serve cold storage facilities within the proposed buildings shall be electrified to facilitate plug-in capabilities and support use of electric standby and/or hybrid electric transport refrigeration units (TRUs). All site and architectural plans submitted to the City Planning Department shall note all the truck/dock bays designated for electrification. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Building Department shall verify electrification of the designated truck/dock bays.
All landscaping equipment (e.g., leaf blower) used for property management shall be electric powered only. The property manager/facility owner shall provide documentation (e.g., purchase, rental, and/or services agreement) to the Planning Department to verify, to the City's satisfaction, that all landscaping equipment utilized will be electric powered.
MM 4.3-11 If the Project constructs a go-kart facility in the commercial area, all go-karts would be required to be electric or zero emissions.
MM 4.3-12 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any of the industrial/warehouse buildings, the Planning Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements require the Project Applicant to provide $1.00 per square foot in funding for fleet upgrade Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
financing to be used over the term of their lease on Zero Emissions (ZE) and Near Zero Emissions (NZE) delivery vans or trucks. This requirement shall apply to new leases only (not renewals) and for the first 10 years of the Project's life. The funding shall be provided in the form of lease allowance/concession. The allowance shall be a reimbursement once ZE or NZE medium/heavy duty vehicles are purchased and can be used at any time during the lease term (i.e., the landlord shall reimburse the tenant once the tenant provides receipt of paid invoice for the order). If a tenant leases their fleet, this allowance shall also cover the cost to lease ZE or NZE trucks. This measure would also facilitate compliance with South Coast AQMD Rule 2305.
4.3.10 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively -Considerable Impact. The Project would be inconsistent with AQMP Criterion No. 1 and 2, resulting in a potentially impact significant.
The Project would implement development -specific air quality mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through 4.3-12), to reduce the Project's construction -source and operational - source air pollutant emissions. Additionally, incorporation of contemporary energy -efficient technologies and operational programs, and compliance with South Coast AQMD emissions reductions and control requirements would reduce Project air pollutant emissions.
The implementation of mitigation measures, Project's emissions -reducing design features, and operational programs are consistent with and support overarching AQMP air pollution reduction strategies. Project support of these strategies would globally promote timely attainment of AQMP air quality standards and would bring the Project into conformance with the AQMP to the extent feasible.
However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Threshold b: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively -Considerable Impact.
A. Construction Emissions Impact Analysis
The Project construction -source emissions have the potential to exceed South Coast AQMD regional thresholds for VOC and NOx emissions prior to mitigation. After application of regulatory controls such as Rule 403, only VOCs and NOx are anticipated to exceed South Coast AQMD regional thresholds. As shown in Table 4.3-11, Maximum Daily Peak Construction Emission Summary with Mitigation, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1, Project construction -source emissions of VOCs would be reduced to less than significant levels. However, even after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2, NOx emissions would still exceed applicable South Coast AQMD thresholds.
With respect to NOx, based on discussions with contractors regarding availability of equipment in Riverside County, it is anticipated due to the size of the Project that there may be lack of availability of sufficient Tier 4 equipment for construction of the Project. Accordingly, notwithstanding Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 which requires use of Tier 4 equipment to the extent feasible, to evaluate the effect of mitigation on NOx impacts from construction, it is conservatively assumed that 50% all off -road Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report
4.3 Air Quality
diesel construction equipment used for project construction shall meet comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 off -road emissions standards or equivalent and the remaining 50% shall comply with Tier 3 off -road emissions standards. Applying these assumptions, after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2, Project construction -source emissions with respect to NOx is considered significant and unavoidable.
Table 4.3-11 Maximum Daily Peak Construction Emission Summary with Mitigation Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC
NOx
CO
SOx
PMio
PM2.5
Summer
2022
11.96 116.81
286.73
2.07 91.15
21.82 2023
26.45 143.43
424.20
2.47 115.27
28.52 2024
25.86 168.69
444.34
2.56 109.42
30.39 2025
34.96 186.62
493.69
2.64 114.70
32.50 2026
17.05 67.54
162.62
0.47 30.67
10.24 2027
13.23 15.45
86.28 0.21
9.24 2.67
Winter
2022
11.59 118.03
277.24
2.06 91.16
21.82 2023
25.65 145.82
403.41
2.44 115.27
28.52 2024
25.02 171.49
421.50
2.53 109.42
30.39 2025
34.12 189.40
470.25
2.61 114.70
32.50 2026
16.65 68.99
151.16
0.45 30.67
10.24 2027
13.11 15.90
82.82 0.20
9.24 3.08
Maximum Daily Emissions
34.96 189.40
493.692
2.64 115.27
32.50 SCAQMD Regional Threshold
75 100
550
150
150
55 Threshold Exceeded?
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-7)
B. Operational Emissions Impact Analysis
The Project would exceed regional thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of VOC, NOx, PMio, and PM2.5. During Phase 1, the Project would exceed the numerical 2 Mitigated CO values are shown to be higher than the unmitigated CO values due to Ca1EEMod calculation procedures for unmitigated emissions calculations (using OFFROAD emission factors) and mitigated calculation procedures (based on Carl Moyer standards) for specific engine tiers. As such, in some instances, the mitigated values may generate higher mitigated emissions due to the difference in calculation procedure. See Ca1EEMod User's Tips, No. 37 (54), for more detailed information.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EU Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of NOx. During Phase 2, the Project will exceed the thresholds of significance for emissions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5.
During Phase 3, the Project would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance for emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Even with the Project's compliance with applicable rules, and the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified above (see MM 4.3-3 through MM 4.3-12), the Project's operational NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would exceed the applicable regional thresholds of significance. As such, Project operational -source NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions are considered significant and unavoidable.
It should be noted that, approximately 91% of the Project's NOx emissions, 93% of the Project's CO emissions, 99% of the Project's PM10 emissions, and 97% of the Project's PM2.5 emissions are derived from vehicle usage which cannot be directly regulated by the City. Neither the Project Applicant nor the Lead Agency can substantively or materially affect reductions in project -related vehicular source emissions beyond the regulatory requirements, and mitigation measures identified herein. While there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce vehicular emissions, as discussed in the mitigation measures section above, the Project will install electric vehicle supply equipment in accordance with California Building Code which will allow charging stations to be supplied based on demand. Charging stations could lead to less use of gasoline -burning automobiles and thus, less air pollutant emissions, Additionally, the Project would be required to implement on -site renewable energy to offset 20% of the expected energy demand for the commercial and industrial land uses as required by compliance with the County of Riverside's Climate Action Plan (CAP). Hence, overall, there are no feasible mitigations that would reduce emissions consistent with the 2015 Air Quality Attainment Plan, and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Additionally, the majority of the Project's NOx and PM10, and PM2.5 emissions are derived from are from the transportation sector, and vast majority of the project's emissions are associated with emissions generated by trucks. In general, the state strategy for the transportation sector for medium and heavy-duty trucks is focused on making trucks more efficient and expediting truck turnover rather than reducing VMT from trucks. This is in contrast to the passenger vehicle component of the transportation sector where both per -capita VMT reductions and an increase in vehicle efficiency are forecasted to be needed to achieve the overall state emissions reductions goals. Regulating tailpipe emissions is beyond the scope of the Project Applicant or the City and no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce these emissions to levels that are less -than -significant.
The Project would also be required to be consistent with the provisions of interior and exterior bicycle storage as a sustainable design strategy consistent with CALGreen. Furthermore, the Project would install 60 electric vehicles (EV) charging stations and clean air/vanpool parking stalls at the Project site, which would contribute to and support the use of more EVs and ridesharing and consequently reduce air quality emissions associated with passenger vehicle travel.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
Emissions associated with heavy duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled on the technology side and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The first battery -electric heavy -heavy duty trucks are being tested this year and South Coast AQMD is looking to integrate this new technology into large-scale truck operations. The following state strategies reduce air quality emissions and GHG emissions from the medium and heavy-duty trucks:
• CARB's Mobile Source Strategy focuses on reducing emissions through the transition to zero and low emission vehicles and from medium -duty and heavy-duty trucks. • CARB's Sustainable Freight Action Plan establishes a goal to improve freight efficiency by 25% by 2030, deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near -zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.
• CARB's Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement (Goods Movement Plan) in California focuses on reducing heavy-duty truck -related emissions focus on establishment of emissions standards for trucks, fleet turnover, truck retrofits, and restriction on truck idling.
While the focus of Goods Movement Plan is to reduce criteria air pollutant and air toxic emissions, the strategies to reduce these pollutants would also generally have a beneficial effect in reducing GHG emissions.
In addition, the US EPA, CARB, and South Coast AQMD are currently in the rule development processes for the follow strategies:
• US EPA Cleaner Truck Initiative: In response to a petition from SCQMD, the US EPA has committed to updating its truck engine standard to reduce NOx emissions. • CARB's Transport Refrigeration Unit Regulation. Measure to reduce residual risk from TRUs by transitioning to zero -emission technologies.
• CARB's Advanced Clean Truck Rule: Requires truck manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of zero -emission trucks by 2030 (up to 15% or 50%, depending on truck type).
Also, this proposed rule would require one-time fleet reporting for large businesses. • CARB's Zero -Emission Fleet Rule: Would require some fleets to transition to zero -emissions. • CARB's Heavy -Duty Low NOx Program: Would set new statewide engine standards, test cycles, and warranty and durability requirements to reduce NOx from trucks. • CARB's Heavy -Duty Inspection/Maintenance Program: Would set new inspection and maintenance requirements to ensure emissions controls are functioning properly. • South Coast AQMD's Warehouse Indirect Source Review (ISR): South Coast AQMD adopted an ISR rule for warehouse distribution centers 100,000 square feet and larger. The Warehouse Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Air Quality
ISR requires warehouse projects to implement facility -based measures or pay a fee that would reduce local air quality emissions.
These strategies would contribute to reducing heavy duty truck emissions associated with the Project.
The Project would not conflict with these strategies. Trucks on site are required to comply with CARB's Heavy -Duty (Tractor -Trailer) GHG Regulation, which requires SmartWay tractor trailers that include idle -reduction technologies, aerodynamic technologies, and low -rolling resistant tires that would reduce fuel consumption and associated emissions.
Additionally, the Project applicant proposes the Project Design Features (PDFs) 8-1 through PDF 8-5 and Mitigation Measure MM 4.8-1 that would be incorporated into the Project design and constructed or implemented as part of the Project. PDFs are specific design and/or operational characteristics proposed by the Project Applicant that are incorporated into the Project. These measures are all designed to reduce GHG emissions attributable to the Project. Although not quantifiable, some of these measures will have a co -benefit of reducing air quality emissions. Therefore, the emissions summary shown in Table 4.3-7 above is a conservative forecast of air quality emissions and the Project is likely to be less than the total shown in Table 4.3-7 above.
Despite the design features and mitigation measures provided by the Project and the anticipated regulations implemented by the US EPA and CARB to improve truck efficiency, the estimated long- term emissions generated under full buildout of the Project would exceed the South Coast AQMD's regional operational significance thresholds and would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SCAB. In addition, regarding VOC, it is important to note that the majority of on - site operational VOC emissions are derived from consumer products. For analytical purposes, consumer products include cleaning supplies, aerosols, and other consumer products. As such, the Project Applicant cannot meaningfully control the use of consumer products by future building users via mitigation. On this basis, it is concluded that Project operational -source VOC emissions cannot be definitively reduced below applicable South Coast AQMD thresholds and therefore are considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following analysis is based in part on information obtained from two technical reports prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (herein, "GLA"), entitled, "Biological Technical Report for the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan" (herein, "BTR"), dated November 16, 2022 and appended to this EIR as Technical Appendix CI (GLA, 2022a). The BTR Project site (herein, "Project site") includes the Project site (539.9 acres), proposed off -site conservation lands (78.40 acres), and an off -site portion of the existing Jack Rabbit Trail easement (4.19 acres). The BTR relies on the findings of a separate technical study prepared by GLA, entitled, "Criteria Cell Refinement Analysis for the Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan," dated September 2, 2022 and appended to this EIR as Technical Appendix C2. Refer to Section 7.0, References, for a complete list of these and other reference sources.
4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Under existing conditions, topography within the approximately 622.46 -acre Project site consists of gently sloping to steeply sloping hills divided by canyons. Elevations within the Project site range from approximately 2,230 to 2,510 feet above mean sea level (amsl), with highest elevations occurring along a central divide between the northeastern and southwestern portions of the site. The northeastern portion of the property adjacent to SR -60 generally consists of gentle valleys and flats and has been subject to decades -long on -going and historical disturbance in the form of grazing and unauthorized off -road motorized vehicle use. The southwestern and southern portions of the Project site have been subject to a much lesser degree of disturbance due to steep terrain consisting of canyons divided by ridgelines occurring in a heavily eroded landscape associated with the Badlands formation. Unpaved access roads also occur throughout the site, the majority of which are located along the northeastern portion of the Project site and serve as utility access. In addition, the existing paved Jack Rabbit Trail (not publicly maintained) traverses the southeastern portion of the property.
A. Vegetation Communities
The Project site supports the following vegetation/land cover types: chaparral, non-native grassland, Riversidean sage scrub, southern riparian scrub, disturbed areas, and developed areas (Jack Rabbit Trail). Table 4.4-1, Summary of Existing Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types, provides a summary of vegetation/land uses and the corresponding acreage, while Figure 4.4-1, Vegetation Map, depicts the extent of the vegetation communities on -site, each of which is described below.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Table 4.4-1 Summary of Existing Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types Vegetation/Land Cover Type
Acreage
Non -Native Grassland
462.56
Riversidean Sage Scrub
137.35
Chaparral
1.88 Southern Riparian Scrub
1.23 Disturbed
17.43 Developed
2.01 Total
622.46
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 4-1)
1. Non -Native Grassland
The Project site supports approximately 462.56 acres of non-native grassland. This plant community is present throughout the Project site, primarily on flat and gentle -sloping areas within the northeastern portion of the Project site, where it appears to have become the dominant vegetation community as a result of historic grazing practices. This community has also extended into the southwesterly portion of the Project site where it has naturalized on steep slopes that allow it to outcompete native vegetation, which has more difficulty establishing due to the steep gradient. These areas are dominated with species such as Madrid brome (Bromus madritensis), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and doveweed (Croton setiger). Other commonly occurring species in this vegetation community include common sand -aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), long -stem wild buckwheat (Eriogonum elongatum), stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Scattered elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) trees also occur sporadically throughout the non-native grassland community.
2. Riversidean Sage Scrub
The Project site supports approximately 137.35 acres of Riversidean sage scrub, primarily in the southwestern portion of the Project site. This community also occurs within the northeastern portion of the Project site, where it was believed to have been historically dominant; Riversidean sage scrub remains on the hills that separate each valley where cattle had more difficulty accessing during historic grazing practices. This plant community is comprised of a mosaic of dominant plant species, including California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sage brush (Artemisia californica), black sage (Salvia mellifera), Palmer's goldenbush (Ericameria palmeri), and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa).
Chaparral yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei) and Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera) also occur sporadically within this vegetation community. Based on the primary dominant species (California buckwheat), this vegetation community would also be characterized as a California Buckwheat Scrub Alliance and is not considered a sensitive vegetation community.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
3. Chaparral
Approximately 1.88 acres of chaparral occur in small pockets within the southwestern portion of the Project site. Within the Project site, this plant community is dominated by sugar bush (Rhus ovata) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia). Additional species that comprise this community within the Project site include black sage (Salvia mellifera), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), and spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea). Based on the dominant species of sugar bush and toyon, this vegetation community would also be characterized as a Sugarbush Chaparral Alliance or a Laurel Sumac Scrub Alliance, neither of which are considered sensitive vegetation communities.
4. Southern Riparian Scrub
The Project site supports approximately 1.23 acres of southern mixed riparian, which occurs in small patches within the canyons that occur along the southwestern portion of the Project site.
Within each patch, this community is dominated by a single species or a mosaic of species, which include mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), sand bar willow (Salix exigua), yellow willow (Salix lutea), sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and narrowleaf cattail (Typha domingensis). Riparian communities, in general, are considered to be sensitive vegetation communities pursuant to CEQA.
5. Disturbed
Disturbed areas account for 17.43 acres throughout the Project site. This land use type consists of a network of dirt access roads, the majority of which occur within the northeastern portion of the Project site. Disturbed areas are generally devoid of vegetation; however, some ruderal species occur sporadically.
6. Developed
The existing Jack Rabbit Trail accounts for approximately 2.01 acres within the southeastern portion of the Project site and consists of a privately maintained paved road providing local access to property owners.
B. Special -Status Vegetation Communities
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) identifies the following ten special -status vegetation communities for the El Casco, California and surrounding quadrangle maps: Canyon Live Oak Ravine Forest, Desert Fan Palm Oasis Woodland, Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Mixed Riparian Forest, Southern Riparian Forest, Southern Riparian Scrub, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, and Southern Willow Scrub. As discussed above, the Project site contains a single special -status vegetation community, Southern Riparian Scrub (1.23 acres). The Riversidean sage scrub and chaparral communities are not considered to be sensitive based on their state rankings.
C. Special -Status Plants
Special -status plant surveys were conducted during the 2019 spring and summer blooming periods. No special -status plants were detected at the Project site during focused plant surveys. Table 4.4-2, Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Special -Status Plants Evaluated for the Project site, provides a list of special -status plants evaluated for the Project site through general biological surveys, habitat assessments, and focused surveys.
Species were evaluated based on the following factors: 1) species identified by the CNDDB and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the Project site, 2) applicable Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) survey areas, and 3) any other special -status plants that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs within the site. The potential for occurrence within the development footprint, defined as the area of disturbance (see Figure 4.4-7, see Development Footprint) is provided in Table 4.2-2.
Table 4.4-2 Special -Status Plants Evaluated for the Project site Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2B.1
MSHCP: None
Mesic soils in chaparral, coastal
scrub, Mojavean desert scrub,
meadows and seeps (often
alkali), and riparian scrub.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
California screw moss
Tortula californica
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Sandy soil in chenopod scrub,
and valley and foothill
grassland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Chaparral sand verbena
Abronia villosa var. aurita
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: None
Sandy soils in chaparral, coastal
sage scrub.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint. Potential to
occur within the
proposed
conservation areas.
Colorado Desert larkspur
Delphinium parishii ssp.
subglobosum
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.3
MSHCP: None
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, pinyon and juniper
woodland, Sonoran desert
scrub.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Coulter's goldfields
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP(d)
Playas, vernal pools, marshes
and swamps (coastal salt).
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Davidson's saltscale
Atriplex serenana var.
davidsonii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP (d)
Alkaline soils in coastal sage
scrub, coastal bluff scrub.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Duran's rush
Juncus duranii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.3
MSHCP: Not
covered
Mesic soils in lower and upper
montane coniferous forests,
meadows and seeps.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Hall's monardella
Monardella macrantha ssp.
hallii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.3
MSHCP: MSHCP
Occurs on dry slopes and ridges
within openings in broadleaved
upland forest, chaparral, lower
montane coniferous forest,
cismontane woodland, and
valley and foothill grassland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Heart -leaved pitcher sage
Lepechinia cardiophylla
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP(d)
Closed -cone coniferous forest,
chaparral, and cismontane
woodland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Jaeger's (bush) milk -vetch
Astragalus pachypus var.
jaegeri
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP
Sandy or rocky soils in
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, and
valley and foothill grassland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint. Potential to
occur within the
proposed
conservation areas.
Johnston's bedstraw
Galium johnstonii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.3
MSHCP: None
Chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest, pinyon and
juniper woodland, riparian
woodland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Laguna Mountains
jewelflower
Streptanthus bernardinus
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.3
MSHCP: Not
covered
Chaparral and lower montane
coniferous forest.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Lemon lily
Lilium parryi
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP (f)
Mesic soils in lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps, riparian forest, and upper
montane coniferous forest.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Little mousetail
Myosurus minimus ssp. apus
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 3.1
MSHCP: MSHCP (d)
Valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools (alkaline soils).
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Long-spined spineflower
Chorizanthe polygonoides
var. longispina
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Clay soils in chaparral, coastal
sage scrub, meadows and seeps,
and valley and foothill
grasslands
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Many -stemmed dudleya
Dudleya multicaulis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP (b)
Openings in chaparral, coastal
sage scrub, and valley and
foothill grasslands, often on
clay soils.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Marsh sandwort
Arenaria paludicola
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: None
Bogs and fens, freshwater
marshes and swamps.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EV Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Mesa horkelia
Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: None
Sandy or gravelly soils in
chaparral (maritime),
cismontane woodland, and
coastal scrub.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Mojave tarplant
Deinandra mohavensis
Federal: None
State: SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.3
MSHCP: MSHCP (e)
Chaparral (mesic soils) and
riparian scrub.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Mud nama
Nama stenocarpum
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP (d)
Marshes and swamps
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Nevin's barberry
Berberis nevinii
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP (d)
Sandy or gravelly soils in
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, and
riparian scrub.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Ocellated humboldt lily
Lilium humboldtii ssp.
ocellatum
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: MSHCP (f)
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub,
lower montane coniferous
forest, riparian woodland.
Occurring in openings.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Palmer's mariposa lily
Calochortus palmeri var.
palmeri
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Mesic soils in chaparral, lower
montane coniferous forest, and
meadows and seeps.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Paniculate tarplant
Deinandra paniculata
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: None
Usually in vernally mesic,
sometimes sandy soils in
coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, and vernal
pools.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Parish's brittlescale
Atriplex parishii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP (d)
Chenopod scrub, playas, vernal
pools.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Parish's bush -mallow
Malacothamnus parishii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank lA
MSHCP: None
Chaparral and coastal scrub
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Parish's checkerbloom
Sidalcea hickmanii ssp.
parishii
Federal: None
State: Rare
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and lower montane
coniferous forest.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Parish's gooseberry
Ribes divaricatum var.
parishii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank lA
MSHCP: None
Riparian woodland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Parish's rupertia
Rupertia rigida
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.3
MSHCP: Not
covered
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps, pebble (pavement) plain,
valley and foothill grassland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Parry's spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP
Sandy or rocky soils in open
habitats of chaparral and
coastal sage scrub.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint. Potential to
occur within the
proposed
conservation areas.
Payson's jewelflower
Caulanthus simulans
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Sandy or granitic soils in
chaparral and coastal scrub.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Peninsular spineflower
Chorizanthe leptotheca
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Alluvial fan, granitic.
Chaparral, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Peruvian dodder
Cuscuta obtusiflora var.
glandulosa
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2B.2
MSHCP: None
Marshes and swamps
(freshwater).
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Plummer's mariposa lily
Calochortus plummerae
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Granitic, rock soils within
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub,
lower montane coniferous
forest, valley and foothill
grassland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Robinson's pepper grass
Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.3
MSHCP: None
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint. Potential to
occur within the
proposed
conservation areas.
Salt marsh bird's -beak
Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
maritimum
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Coastal dune, coastal salt
marshes and swamps.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EV Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Salt Spring checkerbloom
Sidalcea neomexicana
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2B.2
MSHCP: Not
covered
Mesic, alkaline soils in
chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
lower montane coniferous
forest, Mojavean desert scrub,
and playas.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
San Bernardino aster
Symphotrichum defoliatum
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps, marshes and swamps,
valley and foothill grassland
(vernally mesic).
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
San Bernardino grass -of
Parnassus
Parnassia cirrata var. cirrata
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.3
MSHCP: None
Mesic, streamsides, sometimes
calcareous. Lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps, upper montane
coniferous forest.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
San Bernardino Mountains
owl's -clover
Castilleja lasiorhyncha
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: Not
covered
Mesic soils in chaparral,
meadows and seeps, pebble
(pavement) plain, riparian
woodland, and upper montane
coniferous forest.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
San Diego sagewort
Artemisia palmeri
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: None
Sandy and mesic soils in
chaparral, coastal scrub,
riparian forest, riparian scrub,
and riparian woodland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
San Gabriel ragwort
Senecio astephanus
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.3
MSHCP: None
Rocky slopes, coastal bluff
scrub, chaparral.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
San Jacinto Valley
crownscale
Atriplex coronata var.
notation
Federal: FE
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP (d)
Alkaline soils in chenopod
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Santa Ana River woolly star
Eriastrum densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP
Alluvial fan sage scrub,
chaparral. Occurring on sandy
or rocky soils.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Scalloped moonwort
Botrychium crenulatum
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2B.2
MSHCP: None
Bogs and fens, lower and upper
montane coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps, marshes
and swamps (freshwater).
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EV Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Slender -horned spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP(b)
Sandy soils in alluvial scrub,
chaparral, cismontane
woodland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint. 1
Small -flowered morning-
glory
Convolvulus simulans
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Chaparral (openings), coastal
sage scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Occurring on clay
soils and serpentinite seeps.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Smooth tarplant
Centromadia pungens ssp.
laevis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP(d)
Alkaline soils in chenopod
scrub, meadows and seeps,
playas, riparian woodland,
valley and foothill grasslands,
disturbed habitats.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
South coast saltscale
Atriplex pacifica
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: None
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal sage scrub,
playas.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Southern California black
walnut
Juglans californica
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
MSHCP: None
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub,
alluvial surfaces.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Southern jewelflower
Streptanthus campestris
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.3
MSHCP: None
Rocky soils in chaparral, lower
montane coniferous forest, and
pinyon and juniper woodland.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Spiny -hair blazing star
Mentzelia tricuspis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2B.1
MSHCP: None
Sandy, gravelly, slopes, and
washes. Mojavean desert scrub.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Spreading navarretia
Navarretia fossalis
Federal: FT
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP (b)
Vernal pools, playas, chenopod
scrub, marshes and swamps
(assorted shallow freshwater).
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Thread -leaved brodiaea
Brodiaea filifolia
Federal: FT
State: SE
CNPS: Rank 1B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP (d)
Clay soils in chaparral
(openings), cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub,
playas, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EV Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Vernal barley
Hordeum intercedens
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 3.2
MSHCP: MSHCP
Coastal dunes, coastal sage
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland (saline flats and
depressions), vernal pools.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
White rabbit -tobacco
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2B.2
MSHCP: None
Coastal sage scrub and
chaparral.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Wright's trichocoronis
Trichocoronis wrightii var.
wrightii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2B.1
MSHCP: MSHCP(b)
Alkaline soils in meadows and
seeps, marshes and swamps,
riparian scrub, vernal pools.
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Yucaipa onion
Allium marvinii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 1B.2
MSHCP: MSHCP(b)
Chaparral (clay, openings).
Confirmed absent
within the
development
footprint.
Federal: FE — Federally Endangered; SE — State Endangered State: FT — Federally Threatened; ST — State Threatened CNPS Rare Plant Rank
Rank 1B — Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
Rank 2 — Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
Rank 3 — Plants about which more information is needed.
Rank 4 — Plants of limited distribution (a watch list).
CNPS Threat Rank Extensions
.1 — Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 — Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 — Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened, or no current threats known) MSHCP
MSHCP = No additional action necessary
MSHCP(a) = Surveys may be required as part of wetlands mapping MSHCP(b) = Surveys may be required within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area MSHCP(c) = Surveys may be required within locations shown on survey maps MSHCP(d) = Surveys may be required within Criteria Area MSHCP(e) = Conservation requirements identified in species -specific conservation objectives need to be met before classified as a Covered Species
MSHCP(f) = Covered species when a Memorandum of Understanding is executed with the Forest Service Land Not Covered = Species not adequately covered under MSHCP None = Species not considered for coverage under MSHCP
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 4-2)
1. Plant Species with MSHCP Survey Requirements
Many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) is a member of the stonecrop family (Crassulaceae) and is designated as a CNPS List 1B.2 species but is not state or federally listed. This perennial herb is known to occur in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. It is often associated with clay soils. Many -stemmed dudleya is known to occur from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Bernardino, and San Diego counties from approximately 50 to 2,590 feet amsl. This species is known to bloom from April through July.
Yucaipa onion (Allium marvinii) is a member of the lily family (Liliaceae) and is designated as a CNPS List 1B.1 species but is not state or federally listed. This perennial herb is known to occur in clay openings within chaparral from approximately 2,490 to 3,500 feet amsl. Yucaipa onion is known to occur from the Beaumont and Yucaipa areas of Riverside County and is known to bloom from April through May.
These species are not expected to occur due to a lack of suitable (clay) soils within the Project site and were not detected during focused surveys. Therefore, these species were confirmed to be absent from the Project site.
2. Special -Status Plants with Potential to Occur
The special -status plant species described below were not observed by GLA biologists during general and focused plant surveys performed during the 2019 spring and summer blooming periods. These species were determined to be absent from portions of the Project site proposed for development, which were the greater focus of the field efforts and have greater accessibility; however, portions of the Project site not proposed for the development consist of steep terrain divided by a series of ridgelines and canyons largely lacking access roads. As a result, portions of the Project site not proposed for development were surveyed through a combination of direct observation through physical access of ridgelines and canyon bottoms, supplemented by observation of steep hillsides through the use of binoculars. The following special -status species have a potential to occur within the proposed conservation lands, however, these species were confirmed absent during focused surveys within the proposed development footprint:
• Chaparral sand verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita) — This species is a member of the four o'clock family (Nyctaginaceae) and is designated as a CNPS List 1B.1 species but is not state or federally listed. This annual herb is known to occur in chaparral, coastal scrub, and desert dunes from approximately 260 to 5,250 feet amsl. Chaparral sand verbena is known from Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties as well as Baja California. The species is known to bloom from January through September.
• Jaeger's (bush) milk -vetch (Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri) — This species is a member of the pea family (Fabaceae) and is designated as a CNPS List 1B.1 species but is not state or federally listed. This perennial shrub is known to occur in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland from approximately 1,200 to 3,000 feet amsl. Jaeger's milk -vetch is known to occur from Riverside and San Diego Counties and blooms from December through June.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
• Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) — This species is a member of the buckwheat family (Polygonaceae) and is designated as a CNPS List 1B.1 species but is not state or federally listed. This annual herb is known to occur in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub and in rocky or sandy openings in foothill valley and grasslands from approximately 900 to 4,000 feet amsl. Parry's spineflower is known to occur from Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and blooms from April through June. • Robinson's pepper grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii) — This species is a member of the mustard family (Brassicaceae) and is designated as a CNPS List 1B.2 species but is not state or federally listed. This annual herb is known to occur in chaparral and coastal scrub below approximately 2,805 feet amsl. Robinson's peppergrass is known to occur from Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties as well as Baja California. This species is known to bloom from January through July.
Other special -status plant species with potential to occur within the Project site were confirmed absent through general and focused plant surveys, as noted in Table 4.4-2 above. These species include Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii), paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata), and Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica). Nevin's barberry and Southern California black walnut are relatively large, perennial shrubs and trees, respectively, which would have been easily observed during the plant surveys, including with the use of binoculars. In addition, paniculate tarplant typically inhabits disturbed areas which were easily accessible and, if present, this species commonly occurs in large quantities. Due to the habit and growth characteristics of the above noted species, they would have been observed if present; therefore, they were confirmed absent.
D. Special Status Animals
Special -status animals were detected within the Project site: American badger (Taxidea taxus) and red - diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber). Table 4.4-3, Special -Status Animals Evaluated for the Project Site, provides a list of special -status animals evaluated for the Project site that have the potential to occur.
Table 4.4-3 Special -Status Animals Evaluated for the Project Site Species Name
StaTRIME
Habitat Requirements -
Potential for
Occurrence
Invertebrates
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
Federal: None
State: SCE
MSHCP: None
Relatively warm and dry sites,
including the inner Coast
Range of California and
margins of the Mojave Desert.
Potential to occur.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name 1
St
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Fish
Santa Ana speckled dace
Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: Not covered
Occurs in the headwaters of the
Santa Ana and San Gabriel
Rivers. May be extirpated from
the Los Angeles River system.
Requires permanent flowing
streams with summer water
temperatures of 17-20 C.
Usually inhabits shallow cobble
and gravel riffles.
Does not occur.
Southern steelhead - southern
California DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
Federal: FE
State: None
MSHCP: None
Clear, swift moving streams
with gravel for spawning.
Federal listing refers to
populations from Santa Maria
river south to southern extent of
range (San Mateo Creek in San
Diego county.)
Does not occur.
Amphibians
Southern mountain yellow-
legged frog
Rana muscosa
Federal: FE
State: SE
MSHCP: MSHCP (c)
Streams and small pools in
ponderosa pine, montane
hardwood -conifer, and montane
riparian habitat types.
Does not occur.
Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Seasonal pools in coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, and grassland
habitats.
Does not occur.
Reptiles
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans occidentalis
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Inhabits arid scrub, rocky
washes, grasslands, chaparral.
Occurs interior coast range and
southwestern desert regions
Potential to occur.
Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Occurs in a variety of
vegetation types including
coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
annual grassland, oak
woodland, and riparian
woodlands.
Potential to occur
Coast patch -nosed snake
Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: Not covered
Occurs in coastal chaparral,
desert scrub, washes, sandy
flats, and rocky areas.
Potential to occur.
Coastal whiptail
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
(multiscutatus)
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Open, often rocky areas with
little vegetation, or sunny
microhabitats within shrub or
grassland associations.
Potential to occur.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EV Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Red -diamond rattlesnake
Crotalus ruber
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Habitats with heavy brush and
rock outcrops, including coastal
sage scrub and chaparral.
Confirmed present
Southern California legless
lizard
Anniella stebbinsi
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Broadleaved upland forest,
chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal
scrub; found in a broader range
of habitats that any of the other
species in the genus. Often
locally abundant, specimens are
found in coastal sand dunes and
a variety of interior habitats,
including sandy washes and
alluvial fans.
Does not occur.
Southern rubber boa
Charina umbratica
Federal: None
State: ST
MSHCP: MSHCP (f)
Restricted to the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto
Mountain, in a variety of
montane forest habitats. Found
in vicinity of streams or wet
meadows. Requires loose,
moist soil for burrowing. Seeks
cover in rotting logs.
Does not occur.
Two -striped garter snake
Thamnophis hammondii
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Aquatic snake typically
associated with wetland
habitats such as streams,
creeks, and pools.
Does not occur.
Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Slow -moving permanent or
intermittent streams, small
ponds and lakes, reservoirs,
abandoned gravel pits,
permanent and ephemeral
shallow wetlands, stock ponds,
and treatment lagoons.
Abundant basking sites and
cover necessary, including logs,
rocks, submerged vegetation,
and undercut banks.
Does not occur.
Birds
Black swift (nesting)
Cypseloides niger
Federal: BCC
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Nests in forested areas near
rivers in dark, damp areas.
Forages in skies over
mountainous areas and on
coastal cliffs.
Does not occur
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP(c)
Shortgrass prairies, grasslands,
lowland scrub, agricultural
lands (particularly rangelands),
coastal dunes, desert floors, and
some artificial, open areas as a
year -long resident. Occupies
abandoned ground squirrel
burrows as well as artificial
structures such as culverts and
underpasses.
Confirmed absent.
Coastal California
gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica
californica
Federal: FT
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Low elevation coastal sage
scrub and coastal bluff scrub.
Potential to occur.
Golden eagle (nesting and
wintering)
Aquila chrysaetos
Federal: None
State: CFP
MSHCP: MSHCP
In southern California, occupies
grasslands, brushlands, deserts,
oak savannas, open coniferous
forests, and montane valleys.
Nests on rock outcrops and
ledges.
Foraging only.
Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
Federal: FE
State: SE
MSHCP: MSHCP(a)
Dense riparian habitats with a
stratified canopy, including
southern willow scrub, mule fat
scrub, and riparian forest.
Does not occur.
Loggerhead shrike (nesting)
Lanius ludovicianus
Federal: BCC
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Forages over open ground
within areas of short vegetation,
pastures with fence rows, old
orchards, mowed roadsides,
cemeteries, golf courses,
riparian areas, open woodland,
agricultural fields, desert
washes, desert scrub, grassland,
broken chaparral and beach
with scattered shrubs.
Potential to occur.
Northern harrier (nesting)
Circus cyaneus
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
A variety of habitats, including
open wetlands, grasslands, wet
pasture, old fields, dry uplands,
and croplands.
Observed foraging.
Does not nest on -site.
Peregrine falcon (nesting)
Falco peregrinus anatum
Federal: Delisted,
BCC
State: Delisted, CFP
Breeding habitat consists of
high cliffs, tall buildings, and
bridges along the coast and
inland. Foraging habitat
primarily includes open areas
near wetlands, marshes, and
adjacent urban landscapes.
Observed foraging.
Does not nest on -site.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EV Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Purple martin (nesting)
Progne subis
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Forage over towns, cities,
parks, open fields, dunes,
streams, wet meadows, beaver
ponds, and other open areas.
Nest in woodpecker holes in
mountain forests or Pacific
lowlands.
Not expected to occur.
Southwestern willow
flycatcher (nesting)
Empidonax traillii extimus
Federal: FE
State: SE
MSHCP: MSHCP(a)
Riparian woodlands along
streams and rivers with mature
dense thickets of trees and
shrubs.
Does not occur.
Swainson's hawk (nesting)
Buteo swainsoni
Federal: None
State: ST
MSHCP: MSHCP
Occupies grasslands,
brushlands, deserts, oak
savannas, open coniferous
forests, and montane valleys for
hunting and uses perches.
Foraging only.
Tricolored blackbird (nesting
colony)
Agelaius tricolor
Federal: BCC
State: CE, SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Breeding colonies require
nearby water, a suitable nesting
substrate, and open -range
foraging habitat of natural
grassland, woodland, or
agricultural cropland.
Does not occur.
Western yellow -billed
cuckoo (nesting)
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
Federal: FT, BCC
State: SE
MSHCP: MSHCP(a)
Dense, wide riparian
woodlands with well -developed
understories.
Does not occur.
White-tailed kite (nesting)
Elanus leucurus
Federal: None
State: CFP
MSHCP: MSHCP
Winter foraging occurs in wet
meadows, marshes, ponds,
lakes, rivers, and agricultural
fields. Requires extensive
marshes for nesting.
Foraging only.
Yellow warbler (nesting)
Setophaga petechia
Federal: BCC
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Breed in lowland and foothill
riparian woodlands dominated
by cottonwoods, alders, or
willows and other small trees
and shrubs typical of low,
open -canopy riparian
woodland. During migration,
forages in woodland, forest,
and shrub habitats.
Foraging only.
Yellow -breasted chat
(nesting)
Icteria virens
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Dense, relatively wide riparian
woodlands and thickets of
willows, vine tangles, and
dense brush with well -
developed understories.
Does not occur.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
EV Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
Yellow -headed blackbird
(nesting)
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: None
Breed and roost in freshwater
wetlands with dense, emergent
vegetation such as cattails.
Often forage in fields, typically
wintering in large, open
agricultural areas.
Does not occur.
Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: Not covered
Most abundant in drier open
stages of most scrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils.
Confirmed present.
Dulzura pocket mouse
Chaetodipus califronicus
femoralis
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: Not covered
Coastal scrub, grassland, and
chaparral, especially at grass-
chaparral edges
Potential to occur.
Lesser long -nosed bat
Leptonycteris yerbabuenae
Federal: FE
State: None
WBWG: H
MSHCP: None
Thorn scrub and deciduous
forest. Roosts in caves and
mines.
Does not occur.
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP(c)
Fine, sandy soils in coastal sage
scrub and grasslands.
Low potential to
occur.
Mountain lion
Puma concolor
Federal: None
State: SCE
MSHCP: MSHCP
Mountain lions use rocky areas,
cliffs, and ledges that provide
cover within open woodlands
and chaparral, as well as
riparian areas that provide
protective habitat connections
for movement between
fragmented core habitat areas.
Confirmed present at
the site through
detection of tracks and
scat. General potential
to use the site for local
movement and use.
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Coastal sage scrub, sage
scrub/grassland ecotones, and
chaparral.
Potential to occur.
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
MSHCP: Not covered
Deserts, grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands, and forests. Most
common in open, dry habitats
with rocky areas for roosting.
Foraging only.
San Bernardino flying
squirrel
Glaucomys oregonensis
californicus
Federal: None State:
SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP (e)
Black oak or white fir
dominated woodlands between
5,200 and 8,500 feet in the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto
Mountain ranges.
Does not occur.
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
Dipodomys merriamiparvus
Federal: FE
State: SC
MSHCP: MSHCP(c)
Typically found in Riversidean
alluvial fan sage scrub and
sandy loam soils, alluvial fans
Does not occur.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Species Name
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential for
Occurrence
and floodplains, and along
washes with nearby sage scrub.
San Diego black -tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Occupies a variety of habitats,
but is most common among
shortgrass habitats. Also occurs
in sage scrub, but needs open
habitats.
Potential to occur.
San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: MSHCP
Occurs in a variety of shrub and
desert habitats, primarily
associated with rock outcrops,
boulders, cacti, or areas of
dense undergrowth.
Potential to occur.
Southern grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona
Federal: None
State: SSC
MSHCP: Not covered
Desert areas, especially scrub
habitats with friable soils for
digging. Prefers low to
moderate shrub cover.
Potential to occur.
Stephens' kangaroo rat
Dipodomys stephensi
Federal: FE
State: ST
SKR HCP: Covered
Open grasslands or sparse
shrublands with less than 50%
vegetation cover during the
summer.
Potential to occur.
Townsend's big -eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
MSHCP: None
Coniferous forests and
woodlands, deciduous riparian
woodland, semi -desert and
montane shrublands.
Does not occur.
Western mastiff bat
Eumopsperotis californicus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Occurs in many open, semi -arid
to arid habitats, including
conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub,
grasslands, and chaparral.
Roosts in crevices in cliff faces,
high buildings, trees, and
tunnels.
Foraging only.
Western yellow bat
Lasiurus xanthinus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Found in valley foothill
riparian, desert riparian, desert
wash, and palm oasis habitats.
Roosts in trees, particularly
palms. Forages over water and
among trees.
Foraging only.
Federal: FE — Federally Endangered; FT — Federally Threatened; FPT — Federally Proposed Threatened; FC — Federal Candidate; BCC — Bird of Conservation Concern
State: SE — State Endangered; ST — State Threatened; CE — Candidate Endangered; SCE — State Candidate; CFP — California Fully -Protected Species; SSC — Species of Special Concern Western Bat Working Group (WBWG): H — High Priority; LM — Low -Medium Priority; M — Medium Priority; MH — Medium -High Priority
MSHCP
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources MSHCP = No additional action necessary
MSHCP(a) = Surveys may be required as part of wetlands mapping MSHCP(b) = Surveys may be required within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area MSHCP(c) = Surveys may be required within locations shown on survey maps MSHCP(d) = Surveys may be required within Criteria Area MSHCP(e) = Conservation requirements identified in species -specific conservation objectives need to be met before classified as a Covered Species
MSHCP(f) = Covered species when a Memorandum of Understanding is executed with the Forest Service Land Not Covered = Species not adequately covered under MSHCP None = Species not considered for coverage under MSHCP
Occurrence
Does not occur — The site does not contain habitat for the species and/or the site does not occur within the geographic range of the species.
Confirmed absent — The site contains suitable habitat for the species, but the species has been confirmed absent through focused surveys.
Not expected to occur — The species is not expected to occur on -site due to low habitat quality, however absence cannot be ruled out.
Foraging only — This species has potential to occur for foraging only based on suitable foraging habitat; however its presence/absence has not been confirmed.
Potential to occur — The species has a potential to occur based on suitable habitat, however its presence/absence has not been confirmed.
Confirmed present — The species was detected on -site incidentally or through focused surveys Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 4-3)
1. Special -Status Wildlife Species Observed
Red -diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) is designated as a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern (SSC) and is a covered species under the MSHCP without additional survey or conservation requirements. The red -diamond rattlesnake was incidentally observed during the general and focused biological survey efforts.
Bell's Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli) is identified as a planning species for Proposed Core 31 and is a covered species under the MSHCP without additional survey or conservation requirements.
Bell's sage sparrow was observed during biological surveys within the Project site, which provides suitable habitat for this species within the Riversidean sage scrub and chaparral vegetation communities.
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) is designated as an SSC when nesting and is a covered species under the MSHCP without additional survey or conservation requirements. This species was observed foraging in the Project site during the biological survey efforts, but it was not observed nesting within the Project site; therefore, it is considered present for foraging only. 1 As is further discussed below, the Project is located within the MSHCP Criteria Area, which describes lands to be conserved within the Project site. The MSHCP designates the portions of the Project site described for conservation as part of Proposed Core 3.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) has special status when nesting and is a covered species under the MSHCP without additional survey or conservation requirements. This species was observed foraging in the Project site during the biological survey efforts; however, the Project site does not support nesting habitat for this species, which generally consists of high cliffs and tall human -made structures.
The peregrine falcon is also designated as state Fully Protected (CFP) species, which protects individuals from direct harm; however, since the falcon does not nest at the Project site, the Project does not have the potential to harm peregrine falcon individuals.
Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps) is identified as a planning species for Proposed Core 3 and is a covered species under the MSHCP without additional survey or conservation requirements. Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow was observed during biological surveys within the Project site, which provides suitable habitat for this species within the Riversidean sage scrub and chaparral vegetation communities.
American Badger (Taxidea taxus) is designated as an SSC and was initially considered for conservation under the MSHCP. However, the badger is one of many species that was not afforded coverage under the Plan because it was determined that sufficient information was not available to proceed with conservation planning for the species. Although the American badger was not directly observed within the Project site, multiple burrows were observed during biological survey efforts within the Riversidean sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland vegetation communities. As such, the species was assumed to be present within the Project site, although the actual amount of habitat utilized by badgers could not be determined.
Bobcat (Lynx rufus) is identified as a planning species for Proposed Core 3 and is a covered species under the MSHCP without additional survey or conservation requirements. As described below in the discussion for wildlife movement, bobcat tracks and scat were detected by GLA within the Project site during the 2019 biological surveys. Given the presence of potential movement routes (valleys and ridgelines) and a prey population (birds, rabbits, and ground squirrels), bobcats are expected to use access roads, ridgelines, and drainages within the Project site for local movement. In addition, bobcats may currently utilize the Project site to access SR -60, where they likely conduct overland crossing of the active roadway due to the constrained nature of existing culverts to move between existing conserved lands to the north and south. Furthermore, SR -60 improvements being completed by Caltrans include the construction of undercrossings intended for wildlife use, including a 20 -foot -by - 20 -foot box culvert located in the northwestern portion of the Project site. Bobcats are expected to use the culvert and other new SR -60 undercrossings for movement between lands north and southwest of SR -60.
Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) associated with the Southern California and Central Coast populations are designated as a State Candidate Endangered species. On April 16, 2020, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to designate the Southern California and Central Coast mountain lion populations as a Candidate for listing as an Endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The vote triggered what was intended as a one-year review by CDFW to Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources determine whether these mountain lion populations should be formally protected under CESA, but the review is still pending.
As described below in the discussion for wildlife movement, mountain lion tracks and scat were detected by GLA within the Project site during the 2019 biological surveys. Given the presence of potential movement routes (valleys and ridgelines) and a prey population (including mule deer), the Project site is acknowledged as part of a larger home range in the badlands for mountain lions.
Mountain lions are expected to use access roads, ridgelines, and drainages within the Project site for local movement. In addition, mountain lions may currently utilize the Project site to access SR -60, where they would be limited to overland crossing of the active roadway to move between existing conserved lands to the north and south. Furthermore, SR -60 improvements being completed by Caltrans include the construction of undercrossings intended for wildlife use, including a 20 -foot -by - 20 -foot box culvert located in the northwestern portion of the Project site. Mountain lions are expected to use the box culvert and potentially other new SR -60 undercrossings for movement between lands north and southwest of SR -60.
2. Special -Status Wildlife Species Not Observed but with a Potential to Occur at the Project site Eleven species were not observed during general and focused biological surveys, but they have a potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat. Focused surveys were not conducted for these species for a number of reasons depending on the species, including that the MSHCP does not have project -specific survey requirements for the species. Of these 11 species, 7 species (coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, coastal California gnatcatcher, loggerhead shrike, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR), and San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit) are designated as Covered Species under the MSHCP, and as such the participation of a Project in the MSHCP (including the payment of MSHCP development fees) mitigates any potentially significant impacts under CEQA.
Four of the species (Crotch bumble bee, California glossy snake, Dulzura pocket mouse and southern grasshopper mouse) are not designated as Covered Species under the MSHCP. The California glossy snake, Dulzura pocket mouse and southern grasshopper mouse were all initially considered for conservation, but ultimately were not covered due to a lack of sufficient information to proceed with conservation planning. Crotch bumble bee was never considered for conservation at the time that the MSHCP was developed. Details of each species can be found in Section 4.5.2 of the Project's BTR (Technical Appendix Cl to this EIR).
3. Special -Status Wildlife Species Not Observed but with a Potential to Forage within the Project site
Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), and Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia) were not observed within the Project site during general and focused biological surveys. These species have a potential to utilize the site for foraging; however, these birds would not nest at the site due to a lack of suitable habitat. These Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources species are considered special status only when individuals nest at a given property. Details of each bird species can be found in Section 4.5.3 of the Project's BTR (Technical Appendices CJ to this EIR).
Moreover, three special -status bat species, all designated as an SSC, have the potential to forage within the Project site: pallid bat (Antrozouspallidus), western mastiff bat (Eumopsperotis californicus), and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). None of these species are covered under the MSHCP.
However, the context of evaluating significant impacts to these bat species pursuant to CEQA is based on the presence of roosting bats, including specifically for maternity roosting. The Project site supports suitable foraging habitat for each of these species. However, these species are not expected to roost within the Project site, because: 1) rock outcrops are not present and 2) mature trees occur in extremely limited numbers as only solitary or groups of only a few individuals occurring in association with canyon bottoms and do not provide a developed canopy.
4. Special -Status Wildlife Species Confirmed Absent Through Focused Surveys at the Project Site The burrowing owl is designated as an SSC and is a covered species not adequately conserved under the MSHCP, which means that projects located within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area where suitable habitat is present must conduct focused breeding season and pre -construction burrowing owl surveys to determine presence/absence of the species. If burrowing owls are found to be present, avoidance measures must be implemented. As shown in Figure 4.4-2, MSHCP Overlay Survey Area Map, the Project site occurs within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area; therefore, focused surveys were conducted during July and August of 2019 pursuant to MSHCP burrowing owl survey requirements.
Neither burrowing owls nor diagnostic sign of burrowing owls (e.g., cast pellets, preened feathers, or whitewash clustered at a burrow) were observed within the Project site during focused surveys; therefore, this species is considered to be absent from the Project site.
E. Raptor Use and Nesting Birds
The Project site supports suitable foraging and breeding habitat for a number of raptor species, including special -status raptors. Southern California holds a diversity of birds of prey (raptors), and many of these species are in decline. For most of the declining species, foraging requirements include extensive open, undisturbed, or lightly disturbed areas, especially grasslands. This type of habitat has declined severely in the region, affecting many species, but especially raptors. A few species, such as red-tailed hawk (Buteojamaicensis) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius), are somewhat adaptable to low-level human disturbance and can be readily observed adjacent to neighborhoods and other types of development. These species still require appropriate foraging habitat and low levels of disturbance in vicinity of nesting sites.
Many of the raptors that would be expected to forage and nest within western Riverside County are fully covered species under the MSHCP without project -specific conservation requirements. Some common raptor species (e.g., American kestrel and red-tailed hawk) are not covered by the MSHCP but are expected to be conserved with implementation of the Plan due to the parallel habitat needs with those raptors covered under the Plan. Appendix B of the Project's BTR (faunal compendium) provides a list of the raptor species detected over the course of the field studies. These species were red-tailed Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources hawk, red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus; SSC when nesting), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus; CFP), American kestrel, barn owl (Tyto alba), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). The Project site supports suitable foraging habitat and potential prey for the above -mentioned raptor species in the form of insects, spiders, lizards, snakes, small mammals, and other birds. Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) was also observed foraging within the Project site.
The Project site contains trees (in extremely limited numbers), shrubs, and ground cover that provide suitable habitat for many nesting native birds. Mortality of native birds (including eggs) is prohibited under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC).
F. Wildlife Linkages/Corridors and Nursery Sites
1. Wildlife Movement
In general terms, habitat linkages are areas which provide a connection between two or more other habitat areas which are often larger or superior in quality to the linkage. Such linkage sites can be quite small or constricted, but may can be vital to the long-term health of connected habitats. Linkage values are often addressed in terms of "gene flow" between populations, with movement taking potentially many generations.
Corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for individual animals to disperse or migrate between areas, generally extensive but otherwise partially or wholly separated regions.
Adequate cover and tolerably low levels of disturbance are common requirements for corridors. Habitat in corridors may be quite different than that in the connected areas, but if used by the wildlife species of interest, the corridor will still function as desired. As discussed below, the MSHCP does not distinguish between a "linkage" and a "corridor". All movement areas that are important for connecting blocks of habitat are referred to as "linkages". The MSHCP acknowledges that true linkages will provide "live-in" habitat, whereas other linkages will contain only general habitat to support migration/dispersal, and therefore will function more as "corridors". However, to avoid confusion with MSHCP references to "transportation corridors," all wildlife movement routes are referred to as "linkages". Practically speaking though, all recognized "linkages" will function similarly in connecting different habitat blocks (i.e., Core Areas), with some containing a greater degree of "live-in" habitat.
As part of Reserve design, the MSHCP recognizes numerous Core Areas and Linkages (including Constrained Linkages). The following are MSHCP definitions for relevant terms in the discussion of wildlife use (including movement) for the Project site:
• Core — A block of Habitat of appropriate size, configuration, and vegetation characteristics to generally support the life history requirements of one or more Covered Species. • Linkage — A connection between Core Areas with adequate size, configuration and vegetation characteristics to generally provide for "Live -In" Habitat and/or provide for genetic flow for identified Planning Species. Areas identified as Linkages in MSHCP may Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
provide movement Habitat but not Live -In Habitat for some species, thereby functioning more as movement corridors.
• Habitat — The combination of environmental conditions of a specific place providing for the needs of a species or a population of such species. • Live -In Habitat — Habitat that contains the necessary components to support key life history requirements of a species, e.g., year-round Habitat for permanent residents or breeding Habitat for migrant species.
As shown in Figure 4.4-3, MSHCP Overlay Map, the majority of the Project is located within the MSHCP Criteria Area, specifically within Criteria Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125, and Cell Group A. The lands described for conservation within the referenced Cells are intended to contribute to the assembly of Proposed Core 3. As shown in Figure 4.4-4, Proposed Core 3 Map, Proposed Core 3 (Badlands/Potrero) is located in the northeast region of the MSHCP Plan Area. This Core consists mainly of private lands but also contains a few Public/Quasi-Public parcels including De Anza Cycle Park. The Core is connected to Proposed Linkage 12 (north San Timoteo Creek), Proposed Linkage 4 (Reche Canyon), Proposed Constrained Linkage 22 (east San Timoteo Creek), Existing Core H (Lake Perris), Existing Core K (San Jacinto Mountains), Proposed Linkage 11 (Soboba/Gilman Springs), and Proposed Constrained Linkage 21. The Core also functions as a Linkage, connecting the San Bernardino National Forest to the southwest with San Bernardino County and other conserved areas to the north of the Core.
The Project site is located along the eastern edge of Proposed Core 3, with the western/southwestern portion of the Project site described for conservation to be included within Proposed Core 3. The Criteria Refinement was reviewed by the City of Beaumont, County of Riverside, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and CDFW to adjust the conservation distribution amongst the various Criteria Cells that include the Project. Based on the existing Criteria, the majority of the proposed development footprint is outside of the areas to be included as part of Proposed Core 3, and therefore have not been identified by the MSHCP as needed to support the movement of wildlife. With the approval of the Criteria Refinement, the entirety of the Project's development footprint will be excluded from Proposed Core 3 and the lands to be conserved by the Project will be incorporated into Proposed Core 3. The Criteria Refinement Analysis was approved and determined to be in concurrence with the MSHCP by the RCA, USFWS and the CDFW on November 9, 2022. On November 9, 2022, the Wildlife Agencies issued a letter to the City of Beaumont concurring with the RCA's Findings that the proposed Revised Criteria Refinement is superior or equivalent to conservation described within Proposed Core 3.
GLA biologists collected wildlife movement data in 2019 to document the use of the site by mammalian wildlife for live-in habitat and dispersal. The 2019 study used a variety of methods, including the use of wildlife cameras and the documentation of wildlife use by noting sign (i.e., scat and tracks) and roadkill. Through the combination of data, GLA confirmed the presence of seven medium- to large -sized mammal species, including bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), mule Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources deer (Odocoileus hemionus), American badger, raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and mountain lion. As the site contains numerous unpaved roads covering the ridges and lowlands of the site, the biologists found that these roads facilitated the greatest degree of movement for the collective species. The site also contains ephemeral drainage features as part of the natural topography that further facilitate the local movement of wildlife between SR -60 to the north and Proposed Core 3 to the south/southwest.
In 2020, GLA biologists evaluated existing culverts beneath SR -60 for the potential to facilitate wildlife movement between the Project site and lands north of SR -60. During the culvert study, the biologists noted wildlife observations, the presence of diagnostic sign such as tracks and scat, and the potential for each existing culvert located adjacent to the Project site to facilitate wildlife movement beneath SR -60 (i.e., length/width, site distance, and movement constraints). It should be noted that none of the existing culverts were constructed to serve as wildlife crossings. A total of eighteen culverts associated with SR -60 are located adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project site. All the culverts are composed of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and were constructed to provide storm -water conveyance beneath SR -60. Culvert sizes vary between 2 and 4 feet in diameter, and those that were identified as having "line -of -sight" to the opposite side of SR -60 are between 70 and 100 -feet long.
The majority of the culverts were heavily blocked by desiccated vegetation, which would deter medium to large -sized mammals from utilizing the culverts for movement across SR -60. Small mammal scat and tracks were observed at two culverts and coyote scat was noted near one of the culverts, but it is unknown if coyotes would use the small CMP culverts or would cross the active roadway. The culverts could potentially provide movement opportunities for small mammals and reptiles, but not for the medium to large -sized mammals noted to occur within the Project site.
2. Nursery Sites
Wildlife nurseries in the context of CEQA analyses are intended as sites where wildlife concentrate for hatching and/or raising young, such as rookeries, spawning areas, and bat colonies. Nurseries can be important to both special -status species as well as commonly occurring species. The Project site supports reproduction of locally common species and individuals of special -status wildlife species; however, the Project site does not have the potential to support a regionally important wildlife nursery site such as a heronry, colonial nesting site (i.e., northern harrier), or colonial maternal bat roost.
G. Critical Habitat
There is no federally designated Critical Habitat mapped within or adjacent to the Project site.
H. Jurisdictional Waters
1. Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction As shown in Figure 4.4-5, Corps/RWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation Map, the Project site contains approximately 2.33 acres (23,737 linear feet) associated with Drainages A through Q exhibiting characteristics associated with waters of the U.S. and that may be regulated by the Corps and would be regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) pursuant to CWA Section Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
401 and Section 13050[e] of the California Water Code 13050, of which 0.02 acre consists of jurisdictional wetlands. Table 4.4-4, Summary of Corps/Regional Board Jurisdiction for the Project Site, summarizes potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdiction within the Project site.
Table 4.4-4 Summary of Corps/Regional Board Jurisdiction for the Project Site Drainage Name
Non -Wetland Waters (acres)
Wetlands (acres)
Total (acres)
Linear Feet
Drainage A
0.04 0.00
0.04 1,096
Drainage B
0.36 0.00
0.36 1,008
Drainage C
0.04 0.00
0.04 733
Tributary C-1
0.02 0.00
0.02 382
Drainage D
0.06 0.00
0.06 797
Drainage E
0.03 0.00
0.03 478
Drainage F
<0.01
0.00 <0.01
52 Drainage G
0.20 0.00
0.20 2,091
Tributary G-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 408
Drainage H
0.05 0.00
0.05 1,188
Drainage I
0.07 0.00
0.07 1,476
Tributary I-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 533
Tributary I-2
0.01 0.00
0.01 501
Tributary 1-3
0.03 0.00
0.03 954
Tributary 1-4
0.01 0.00
0.01 299
Drainage J
0.04 0.00
0.04 547
Drainage K
0.02 0.00
0.02 461
Tributary K-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 330
Tributary K-2
0.02 0.00
0.02 261
Drainage L
0.17 0.02
0.19 1,344
Drainage M
0.05 0.00
0.05 767
Tributary M-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 305
Drainage N
0.13 0.00
0.13 1,480
Tributary N-1
0.02 0.00
0.02 592
Drainage O
0.01 0.00
0.01 419
Tributary O-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 109
Drainage P
0.72 0.00
0.72 2,076
Tributary P-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 435
Tributary P-2
0.02 0.00
0.02 250
Tributary P-3
0.02 0.00
0.02 560
Drainage Q
0.10 0.00
0.10 1,805
Total
2.31 0.02
2.33 23,737
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 4-4)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
2. CDFW Jurisdiction
As shown in Figure 4.4-6, CDFW/MSHCP Jurisdictional Delineation Map, CDFW jurisdiction associated with the Project site totals approximately 3.75 acres, 23,737 linear feet, of which 1.18 acres consists of jurisdictional riparian habitat and 2.57 acres consist of non -riparian streambed. Table 4.4- 5, Summary of CDFW Jurisdiction for the Project Site, summarizes CDFW jurisdiction within the Project site.
Table 4.4-5 Summary of CDFW Jurisdiction for the Project Site Drainage Name
Non -Riparian (acres)
Riparian (acres)
Total (acres)
Linear Feet
Drainage A
0.06 0.00
0.06 1,096
Drainage B
0.36 0.00
0.36 1,008
Drainage C
0.07 0.00
0.07 733
Tributary C-1
0.03 0.00
0.03 382
Drainage D
0.09 0.00
0.09 797
Drainage E
0.03 0.00
0.03 478
Drainage F
<0.01
0.00 <0.01
52 Drainage G
0.29 0.00
0.29 2,091
Tributary G-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 408
Drainage H
0.07 0.00
0.07 1,188
Drainage I
0.11 0.08
0.19 1,476
Tributary I-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 533
Tributary I-2
0.01 0.00
0.01 501
Tributary 1-3
0.05 0.00
0.05 954
Tributary I-4
0.01 0.00
0.01 299
Drainage J
0.04 0.00
0.04 547
Drainage K
0.02 0.00
0.02 461
Tributary K-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 330
Tributary K-2
0.02 0.00
0.02 261
Drainage L
0.08 0.55
0.63 1,344
Drainage M
0.03 0.33
0.36 767
Tributary M-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 305
Drainage N
0.15 0.20
0.35 1,480
Tributary N-1
0.02 0.00
0.02 592
Drainage O
0.02 0.00
0.02 419
Tributary O-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 109
Drainage P
0.73 0.00
0.73 2,076
Tributary P-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 435
Tributary P-2
0.04 0.00
0.04 250
Tributary P-3
0.02 0.00
0.02 560
Drainage Q
0.15 0.02
0.17 1,805
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• 1 Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Drainage Name
Non -Riparian (acres)
Riparian (acres)
Total (acres)
Linear Feet
Total
2.57 1.18
3.75 23,737
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 4-6)
1. MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
Vegetation communities associated with riparian systems and vernal pools are depleted natural vegetation communities, because, similar to coastal sage scrub, they have declined throughout Southern California during past decades. In addition, they support a large variety of special -status wildlife species. Most species associated with riparian/riverine are covered species under the MSHCP (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2). The MSHCP has specific policies and procedures regarding the evaluation and conservation of riparian/riverine resources (including riparian vegetation) and vernal pools because it supports MSHCP covered species. Thus, the MSHCP classification of riparian/riverine includes both riparian (depleted natural vegetation communities) as well as ephemeral drainages that are natural in origin but may lack riparian vegetation.
The riparian/riverine jurisdiction in the Project site is identical to that of CDFW jurisdiction. It totals approximately 3.75 acres, of which 1.18 acres consist of riparian habitat, and the remaining 2.57 acres consist of riverine streambed.
Although riparian habitat is present within the Project site in the form of southern riparian scrub, this community does not hold the potential to support least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow -billed cuckoo. Within the Project site, this community is comprised of individual trees and shrubs with an herbaceous understory, and does not contain a stratified canopy or support the structural complexity required to support these species.
The Project site does not contain any depressions (natural or artificial) that would inundate long enough to support resources associated with vernal pools, including fairy shrimp. The soils mapped within the Project site are categorized as sandy loam soils, which are generally not associated with vernal pools.
Direct observations of the soils within the Project site showed a lack of clay soil components.
Additionally, road ruts are generally not allowed to develop or persist for durations long enough to support resources associated with pools due to regular maintenance of the access roads located within the Project site. Regular maintenance is required to keep the roads free of ruts and washouts to be utilized for operations and maintenance of various utilities (i.e., Southern California Edison transmission towers and a SoCal Gas transmission pipeline), as well as access to commercial apiary operations. Furthermore, no plant species were observed within the Project site that are associated with vernal pools and similar habitats that experience prolonged inundation.
4.4.2 NOTICE OF PREPARATION/SCOPING COMMENTS
A Notice of Preparation for the Project was released for public review on September 7, 2020 and an EIR Scoping Meeting was held September 17, 2020. No comments were made during the EIR Scoping Meeting that pertain to biological resources.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Two comments related to biological resources from CDFW on September 29, 2020 and Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) was received on October 6, 2020. CDFW requested that the Draft EIR include analysis for various habitat types, flora and fauna, wildlife, special status plants and natural communities, and full accounting of all mitigation/conservation lands within and adjacent to the Project in the Biological Resources Assessment. CDFW also requests direct, indirect, and cumulative biological resources impact analysis, alternative analysis, mitigation measures for Project impacts to biological resources, obtainment of a CESA Incidental Take Permit, demonstration on how the Project is consistent with Section 7.0 of the MSHCP, and notification to the CDFW per Fish and Game Code Section 1602, if necessary.
CBD requested that the Draft EIR evaluate climate change on wildlife; consider corridor redundancy to allow for improved functional connectivity and resilience and, should the City conclude that impacts to wildlife movement and habitat connectivity are significant and unavoidable, urges the adoption of effective mitigation measures that address the needs of the target species; the EIR disclose, analyze, and mitigate, to the extent feasible, impacts to special -status species, including but not limited to mountain lions, a candidate species under CESA.
4.4.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
A. Federal
1. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The purpose of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. It is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS and the Commerce Department's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine wildlife such as whales and anadromous fish such as salmon. Under the ESA, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened. "Endangered" means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. "Threatened" means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened (USFWS, 2017).
The ESA makes it unlawful for a person to take a listed animal without a permit. Take is defined as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Through regulations, the term "harm" is defined as "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering." Listed plants are not protected from take, although it is illegal to collect or maliciously harm them on federal land. Protection from commercial trade and the effects of federal actions do apply for plants (USFWS, 2017).
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to use their legal authorities to promote the conservation purposes of the ESA and to consult with the USFWS and NMFS, as appropriate, to ensure that effects Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources of actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. During consultation, the "action" agency receives a "biological opinion" or concurrence letter addressing the proposed action. In the relatively few cases in which the USFWS or NMFS makes a jeopardy determination, the agency offers "reasonable and prudent alternatives" about how the proposed action could be modified to avoid jeopardy. It is extremely rare that a project ends up being withdrawn or terminated because of jeopardy to a listed species (USFWS, 2017).
Section 10 of the ESA may be used by landowners including private citizens, corporations, tribes, states, and counties who want to develop property inhabited by listed species. Landowners may receive a permit to take such species incidental to otherwise legal activities, provided they have developed an approved habitat conservation plan (HCP). HCPs include an assessment of the likely impacts on the species from the proposed action, the steps that the permit holder will take to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts, and the funding available to carry out the steps. HCPs may benefit not only landowners but also species by securing and managing important habitat and by addressing economic development with a focus on species conservation (USFWS, 2017).
2. Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 water quality certification provides states and authorized tribes with an effective tool to help protect water quality, by providing them an opportunity to address the aquatic resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. Under Section 401, a federal agency cannot issue a permit or license for an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. until the state or tribe where the discharge would originate has granted or waived Section 401 certification.
The central feature of CWA Section 401 is the state or tribe's ability to grant, grant with conditions, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification, with or without conditions, allows the federal permit or license to be issued consistent with any conditions of the certification. Denying certification prohibits the federal permit or license from being issued. Waiver allows the permit or license to be issued without state or tribal comment. States and tribes make their decisions to deny, certify, or condition permits or licenses based in part on the proposed project's compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -approved water quality standards. In addition, states and tribes consider whether the activity leading to the discharge will comply with any applicable effluent limitation's guidelines, new source performance standards, toxic pollutant restrictions, and other appropriate requirements of state or tribal law (EPA, 2022).
Many states and tribes rely on Section 401 certification to ensure that discharges of dredge or fill material into a water of the U.S. do not cause unacceptable environmental impacts and, more generally, as their primary regulatory tool for protecting wetlands and other aquatic resources. However, Section 401 is limited in scope and application to situations involving federally -permitted or licensed activities that may result in a discharge to a water of the U.S. If a federal permit or license is not required, or would authorize impacts only to waters that are not waters of the U.S., the activity is not subject to the CWA Section 401 (EPA, 2022).
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources The term "wetlands" (a subset of"waters of the United States") is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support...a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987 the Corps published the Wetland Manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The methodology set forth in the Wetland Manual and the Arid West Supplement generally require that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the Wetland Manual and Arid West Supplement provide great detail in methodology and allow for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria:
• More than 50% of the dominant plant species at the site must be hydrophytic in nature as published in the most current national wetland plant list; • Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and • Whereas the Wetland Manual requires that hydrologic characteristics indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least 5% of the growing season during a normal rainfall year, the Arid West Supplement does not include quantitative criteria with the exception for areas with "problematic hydrophytic vegetation", which require a minimum of 14 days of ponding to be considered a wetland.
3. Clean Water Act Section 404
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Wetlands subject to CWA Section 404 are defined as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports) and mining projects. Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g. certain farming and forestry activities) (EPA, n.d.).
The basic premise of the program is that no discharge of dredged or fill material may be permitted if:
(1) a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment; or (2) the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. Applications for permits must, to the extent practicable:
(1) demonstrate steps have been taken to avoid wetland impacts; (2) demonstrate that potential impacts on wetlands have been minimized; and (3) provide compensation for any remaining unavoidable impacts. Proposed activities are regulated through a permit review process (EPA, n.d.).
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
An individual permit is required for potentially significant impacts. Individual permits are reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which evaluates applications under a public interest review, as well as the environmental criteria set forth in the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
However, for most discharges that will have only minimal adverse effects, a general permit may be suitable. General permits are issued on a nationwide, regional, or State basis for particular categories of activities. The general permit process eliminates individual review and allows certain activities to proceed with little or no delay, provided that the general or specific conditions for the general permit are met. States also have a role in Section 404 decisions, through state program general permits, water quality certification, or program assumption (EPA, n.d.).
4. Executive Order 11990 — Protection of Wetlands
The purpose of Executive Order (EO) 11990 is to "minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands." To meet these objectives, the Order requires federal agencies, in planning their actions, to consider alternatives to wetland sites and limit potential damage if an activity affecting a wetland cannot be avoided (FEMA, 2022). The Order applies to:
• Acquisition, management, and disposition of federal lands and facilities construction and improvement projects which are undertaken, financed, or assisted by federal agencies; • Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing activities (FEMA, 2022).
The procedures require the determination of whether or not the proposed project will be in or will affect wetlands. If so, a wetlands assessment must be prepared that describes the alternatives considered. The procedures include a requirement for public review of assessments (FEMA, 2022).
5. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC Section 703-712)
The MBTA makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to federal regulations. The migratory bird species protected by the MBTA are listed in 50 CFR 10.13. The USFWS has statutory authority and responsibility for enforcing the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712). The MBTA implements Conventions between the United States and four countries (Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of migratory birds (USFWS, 2018).
8. State
1. California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The CESA states that all native species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be protected or Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources preserved. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) works with interested persons, agencies, and organizations to protect and preserve such sensitive resources and their habitats. CESA prohibits the take of any species of wildlife designated by the California Fish and Game Commission as endangered, threatened, or candidate species. CDFW may authorize the take of any such species if certain conditions are met (CDFW, n.d.).
Section 2081 subdivision (b) of the CFGC allows CDFW to authorize take of species listed as endangered, threatened, candidate, or a rare plant, if that take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities and if certain conditions are met. These authorizations are commonly referred to as incidental take permits (ITPs) (CDFW, n.d.).
If a species is listed by both the federal ESA and CESA, CFGC Section 2080.1 allows an applicant who has obtained a federal incidental take statement (federal Section 7 consultation) or a federal incidental take permit (federal Section 10(a)(1)(B)) to request that the Director of CDFW find the federal documents consistent with CESA. If the federal documents are found to be consistent with CESA, a consistency determination (CD) is issued and no further authorization or approval is necessary under CESA (CDFW, n.d.).
A Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) authorizes incidental take of a species listed as endangered, threatened, candidate, or a rare plant, if implementation of the agreement is reasonably expected to provide a net conservation benefit to the species, among other provisions. SHAs are intended to encourage landowners to voluntarily manage their lands to benefit CESA-listed species. California SHAs are analogous to the federal safe harbor agreement program and CDFW has the authority to issue a consistency determination based on a federal safe harbor agreement (CDFW, n.d.).
2. California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600, et seq.
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the CFGC, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife.
CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." CDFW's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs." CDFW also defines a stream as "a body of water that flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators."
It is important to note that the Fish and Game Code defines fish and wildlife to include: all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, and related ecological communities including the habitat upon which they depend for continued viability (FGC Division 5, Chapter 1, Section 45 and Division 2, Chapter 1, Section 711.2(a) respectively). Furthermore, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 6, Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific flow events, seasonal changes in water flow, or presence/absence of vegetation types or communities.
CFGC Section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following: (1) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake.
The CFGC indicates that "any river, stream or lake" includes those that are episodic (they are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (they flow year-round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow. It may also apply to work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water (CDFW, n.d.).
CDFW requires a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement when it determines that the activity, as described in a complete LSA Notification, may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources. An LSA Agreement includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources. CDFW may suggest ways to modify a project that would eliminate or reduce harmful impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Before issuing an LSA Agreement, CDFW must comply with CEQA (CDFW, n.d.).
3. Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and allows the Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. There are 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants that are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants, but includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; emergencies; and after properly notifying CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites, changes in land use, and in certain other situations (CDFW, n.d.).
4. Unlawful Take or Destruction of Nests or Eggs (CFGC Sections 3503.5-3513) CFGC Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds of prey, stating: "It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any . . . [birds -of -prey] or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto." Section 3513 of the CFGC duplicates the federal protection of migratory birds, stating: "It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act" (CA Legislative Info, n.d.).
5. Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter -Cologne Act is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter -Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter -Cologne Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the State is as follows:
• That the quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected; • That all activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason; and
• That the State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation (SWRCB, 2018).
The Porter -Cologne Act established nine Regional Water Boards (based on hydrogeologic barriers) and the State Water Board, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The State Water Board provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews Regional Water Boards decisions. In addition, the State Water Board allocates rights to the use of surface water. The Regional Water Boards have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The State Water Board and Regional Water Boards have numerous Non - Point Source (NPS)-related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management (SWRCB, 2018).
The Regional Water Boards regulate discharges under the Porter -Cologne Act primarily through issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for point source discharges and waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for NPS discharges. Anyone discharging or proposing to discharge materials that could affect water quality (other than to a community sanitary sewer system regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste discharge. The SWRCB and the RWQCBs can make their own investigations or may require dischargers to carry out water quality investigations and report on water quality issues. The Porter -Cologne Act provides several options for enforcing WDRs and other orders, including cease and desist orders, cleanup and abatement orders, administrative civil liability orders, civil court actions, and criminal prosecutions (SWRCB, 2018).
The Porter -Cologne Act also requires adoption of water quality control plans that contain the guiding policies of water pollution management in California. A number of statewide water quality control plans have been adopted by the State Water Board. In addition, regional water quality control plans (basin plans) have been adopted by each of the Regional Water Boards and get updated as necessary and practical. These plans identify the existing and potential beneficial uses of waters of the State and establish water quality objectives to protect these uses. The basin plans also contain implementation, surveillance, and monitoring plans. Statewide and regional water quality control plans include enforceable prohibitions against certain types of discharges, including those that may pertain to nonpoint sources. Portions of water quality control plans, the water quality objectives and beneficial use designations, are subject to review by the EPA, when approved they become water quality standards under the CWA (SWRCB, 2018).
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
6. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380
CEQA requires evaluation of a project's impacts on biological resources and provides guidelines and thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed impacts. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, CEQA provides protection for non -listed species that could potentially meet the criteria for state listing. For plants, CDFW recognizes that plants on Lists 1A, 1B, or 2 of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California may meet the criteria for listing and should be considered under CEQA. CDFW also recommends protection of plants, which are regionally important, such as locally rare species, disjunct populations of more common plants, or plants CNPS Ranked 3 or 4.
Federally Designated Special -Status Species
Within recent years, the USFWS instituted changes in the listing status of candidate species. Former Cl (candidate) species are now referred to simply as candidate species and represent the only candidates for listing. Former C2 species (for which the USFWS had insufficient evidence to warrant listing) and C3 species (either extinct, no longer a valid taxon or more abundant than was formerly believed) are no longer considered as candidate species. Therefore, these species are no longer maintained in list form by the USFWS, nor are they formally protected. This term is employed in this document but carries no official protections. All references to federally protected species in this report (whether listed, proposed for listing, or candidate) include the most current published status or candidate category to which each species has been assigned by USFWS.
Sate Designated Special -Status Species
Some mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected (CFP) Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the CFGC, Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively. California SSC are designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW's CNDDB project.
Informally listed taxa are not protected but warrant consideration in the preparation of biotic assessments. For some species, the CNDDB is only concerned with specific portions of the life history, such as roosts, rookeries, or nest sites.
CNDDB Global/State Rankings
The CNDDB provides global and state rankings for species and communities based on a system developed by The Nature Conservancy to measure rarity of a species. The ranking provides a shorthand formula about how rare a species/community is and is based on the best information available from multiple sources, including state and federal listings, and other groups that recognize species as sensitive (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Audubon Society, etc.). State and global rankings are used to prioritize conservation and protection efforts so that the rarest species/communities receive immediate attention. In both cases, the lower ranking (i.e., G1 or S1) indicates extreme rarity. Rare species are given a ranking from 1 to 3. Species with a ranking of 4 or 5 is considered to be common.
If the exact global/state ranking is undetermined, a range is generally provided. For example, a global ranking of "G1G3" indicates that a species/community global rarity is between GI and G3. If the Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources animal being considered is a subspecies of a broader species, a "T" ranking is attached to the global ranking. The following are descriptions of global and state rankings:
Global Rankings
• G1 — Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences), or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. • G2 — Imperiled globally because of rarity (6-20 occurrences), or because of some other factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. • G3 — Either very rare and local throughout its range (21 to 100 occurrences) or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a restricted range (e.g., a physiographic region), or because of some other factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
• G4 — Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
• G5 — Common, widespread, and abundant.
State Rankings
• S1 — Extremely rare; typically 5 or fewer known occurrences in the state; or only a few remaining individuals; may be especially vulnerable to extirpation. • S2 — Very rare; typically between 6 and 20 known occurrences; may be susceptible to becoming extirpated.
• S3 — Rare to uncommon; typically 21 to 50 known occurrences; S3 ranked species are not yet susceptible to becoming extirpated in the state but may be if additional populations are destroyed.
• S4 - Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.
• S5 - Common, widespread, and abundant in the state.
California Native Plant Society
The CNPS is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of sensitive species in California. The CNPS's Eighth Edition of the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California separates plants of interest into five ranks.
CNPS has compiled an inventory comprised of the information focusing on geographic distribution and qualitative characterization of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered vascular plant species of California. The list serves as the candidate list for listing as threatened and endangered by CDFW.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
C. Regional
1. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Western Riverside County MSHCP was approved on June 17, 2003, and an Implementing Agreement (IA) was executed between the federal and state wildlife agencies and participating entities.
The MSHCP is a comprehensive habitat conservation -planning program for western Riverside County.
The intent of the MSHCP is to preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. As such, the MSHCP is intended to streamline review of individual projects with respect to the species and habitats addressed in the MSHCP, and to provide for an overall Conservation Area that would be of greater benefit to biological resources than would result from a piecemeal regulatory approach. The MSHCP provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special -status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to sensitive species pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FESA.
Through agreements with the USFWS and the CDFW, the MSHCP designates 146 special -status animal and plant species that receive some level of coverage under the plan. Of the 146 "Covered Species" designated under the MSHCP, the majority of these species have no additional survey/conservation requirements. In addition, through project participation with the MSHCP, the MSHCP provides mitigation for project -specific impacts to Covered Species so that the impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance pursuant to CEQA. Project -specific survey requirements exist for species designated as "Covered Species not yet adequately conserved". These include Narrow Endemic Plant Species, as identified by the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA); Criteria Area Plant Species identified by the Criteria Area Species Survey Areas (CASSA); animal species as identified by survey area; and plant and animal species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2).
For projects that have a federal nexus such as through federal CWA Section 404 permitting, take authorization for federally listed covered species would occur under Section 7 (not Section 10) of FESA and USFWS would provide a MSHCP consistency review of the proposed project, resulting in a biological opinion. The biological opinion would not require more mitigation (including conservation) than what is required to be consistent with the MSHCP.
D. Local
1. City of Beaumont General Plan
The General Plan identifies goals related to biological resources in the Conversation and Open space and Land Use and Community Design Elements. The Project -applicable goals and policies and a discussion of the Project's consistency are discussed in Table 4.11-1, General Plan Applicability Analysis, in EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
4.4.4 METHODOLOGY
The focus of the biological surveys was determined through initial site reconnaissance, a review of the CNDDB, the CNPS 8th edition online inventory, the Natural Resource Conservation Service soil data, MSHCP species and habitat maps and sensitive soil map, other pertinent literature, and knowledge of the region. Site -specific general surveys within the Project site were conducted on foot for each target plant or animal species identified above. Table 4.4-6, Summary of Biological Surveys for the Project Site, provides a summary list of survey dates, survey types, and personnel.
Table 4.4-6 Summary of Biological Surveys for the Project Site Survey Type
2019 Survey Dates
General Biological Surveys
4/10, 4/15
Evaluation of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas
4/15, 11/19, 12/6
Evaluation of MSHCP Vernal Pools and Fairy Shrimp Habitat 4/15, 5/1, 11/19, 12/6
Delineation of Federal and State Jurisdictional Waters
4/15, 11/19, 12/6
Focused Plant Surveys
4/10, 4/15, 5/1, 5/23, 5/30
Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
7/23, 7/24, 8/1, 8/21
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 2-1)
A. Botanical Resources
A site -specific survey program was designed to accurately document the botanical resources within the Project site, and consisted of five components: (1) a literature search; (2) preparation of a list of target special -status plant species and sensitive vegetation communities that could occur within the Project site; (3) general field reconnaissance surveys; (4) vegetation mapping according to Holland (Holland 1986); and (5) habitat assessments and focused surveys for special -status plants (including those with MSHCP requirements).
Prior to conducting fieldwork, pertinent literature on the flora of the region was examined. A thorough archival review was conducted using available literature and other historical records. These resources included the CNPS, Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39) and CNDDB for the USGS 7.5' quadrangles: El Casco, California and surrounding quadrangles.
A literature search was conducted to obtain a list of special -status plants with the potential to occur within the Project site. The CNDDB was initially consulted to determine well-known occurrences of plants and habitats of special concern in the region. Other sources used to develop a list of target species for the survey program included the CNPS online inventory and the MSHCP.
The Project site is located within NEPSSA designated survey area 8. Pursuant to the MSHCP, the following target species must be evaluated through habitat assessments and focused surveys (if suitable habitat is present): many -stemmed dudleya (Dudley multicaulis; CRPR 1B.2) and Yucaipa onion (Allium marvinii; CRPR 1B.2). Based on this information, vegetation profiles and a list of target sensitive plant species and habitats that could occur within the Project site were developed and Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
incorporated into a mapping and survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) characterize the vegetation associations and land use; (2) prepare a detailed floristic compendium; (3) identify the potential for any special -status plants that may occur within the Project site; and (4) prepare a map showing the distribution of any sensitive botanical resources associated with the Project site, if applicable.
GLA biologists visited the Project site on April 10, April 15, May 1, May 23, and May 30, 2019, to conduct general and focused plant surveys. Surveys were conducted in accordance with accepted botanical survey guidelines. As applicable, surveys were conducted at appropriate times based on precipitation and flowering periods and had the greatest focus on portions of the Project site that are proposed for development by the Project. An aerial photograph, a soil map, and/or a topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive and uncommon taxa or communities within the Project site. Surveys were conducted by following meandering transects within target areas of suitable habitat. All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified and recorded following the above -referenced guidelines adopted by CNPS and CDFW. A complete list of the plant species observed is provided in Appendix A of the Project's BTR (Technical Appendix Cl to this EIR).
B. Wildlife Resources
Wildlife species were evaluated and detected during the field surveys by sight, call, tracks, and scat.
Site reconnaissance was conducted in such a manner as to allow inspection of the entire Project site by direct observation, including the use of binoculars. Observations of physical evidence and direct sightings of wildlife were recorded in field notes during the visits. A complete list of wildlife species observed within the Project site is provided in Appendix B of the Project's BTR (Technical Appendix Cl to this EIR). The methodology (including any applicable survey protocols) utilized to conduct general surveys, habitat assessments, and focused surveys for special -status animals are included below.
During the general biological and reconnaissance survey within the Project site, birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians were identified incidentally within each habitat type. Birds were detected by both direct observation and by vocalizations and were recorded in field notes. Mammals were detected both by direct observations and by the presence of diagnostic sign (i.e., tracks, burrows, scat, etc.).
Habitats were examined for diagnostic reptile sign, which include shed skins, scat, tracks, snake prints, and lizard tail drag marks. All reptiles and amphibian species observed, as well as diagnostic sign, were recorded in field notes.
A literature search was conducted to obtain a list of special -status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Project site. Species were evaluated based on three factors, including: 1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in vicinity of the Project site, (2) species survey areas as identified by the MSHCP for the Project site; and 3) any other special - status animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs within the Project site. GLA biologists conducted habitat assessments for Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
ELIEnvironmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources special -status animal species on April 1 and April 15, 2019. An aerial photograph, soil map and topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support special -status and uncommon taxa within the Project site.
1. Burrowing Owl
The Project site is located within the MSHCP survey area for the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).
GLA biologist conducted focused surveys for the burrowing owl for all suitable habitat areas within the Project site on July 23, July 24, August 1, and August 21, 2019. Surveys were conducted in accordance with survey guidelines described in the 2006 MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions.
Based on the amount of suitable habitat, the Project site was divided into two survey polygons, with one polygon surveyed in the morning and the second polygon surveyed around dusk. The morning surveys were conducted within a period from one hour prior to sunrise to two hours after sunrise and continued while the potential to observe burrowing owls and general bird activity continued to be high, and the dusk surveys from two hours before sunset to one hour after sunset.
Both the burrow and owl surveys were conducted during weather that was conducive to observing owls outside their burrows and detecting burrowing owl sign and not during rain, high winds (> 20 mph), dense fog, or temperatures over 90 °F. Additionally, all work was performed more than 5 days after a rain event. Surveys were conducted by walking meandering transects throughout areas of suitable habitat. Transects were spaced between 22 feet and 65 feet apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density, in order to provide adequate visual coverage of the survey areas. At the start of each transect, and at least every 320 feet along transects, the survey area was scanned for burrowing owls using binoculars. All suitable burrows were inspected for diagnostic owl sign (e.g., pellets, prey remains, whitewash, feathers, bones, and/or decoration) in order to identify potentially occupied burrows.
C. Jurisdictional Waters
The Project was delineated to identify the limits of jurisdictional waters, including waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps and Regional Board, and waters of the State (including riparian vegetation) subject to the jurisdiction of CDFW. Prior to beginning the field delineation, a 200 -scale color aerial photograph and the previously cited USGS topographic maps were examined to determine the locations of potential areas of Corps/CDFW jurisdiction. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Potential wetland habitats at the subject site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement. The presence of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) was determined using the 2008 Field Guide to Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States in conjunction with the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. While in the field, the limits of the OHWM, wetlands (if applicable), and CDFW jurisdiction were recorded using GPS technology and/or on copies of the aerial photography. Other data were recorded onto the appropriate datasheets.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ O Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources D. MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
GLA biologists surveyed the Project site for riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool/seasonal pool habitat, including features with the potential to support fairy shrimp on multiple occasions during the 2019 rainfall season, including April 15, May 1, November 19, and December 6, 2019. To assess for vernal/seasonal pools (including fairy shrimp habitat), GLA biologists evaluated the topography of the site, including whether the site contained depressional features/topography with the potential to become inundated; whether the site contained soils associated with vernal/seasonal pools; and whether the site supported plants that suggested areas of localized ponding.
4.4.5 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, significance determinations utilized in this section are from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Section IV of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines addresses typical adverse effects to biological resources, and includes the following threshold questions to evaluate the Project's impacts to biological resources:
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 US Fish and Wildlife Service;
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (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.
4.4.6 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES The Project includes the following Regulatory Requirements (RR) and Project Design Features (PDFs) that serve to reduce the Project's impacts. The RRs and PDFs will be included in the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure implementation.
RR 4-1 The Project Applicant is required to pay MSHCP development fees.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
PDF 4-1
PDF 4-2
The Project would conserve 230.82 acres of open space, including 80.63 acres of native vegetation communities (1.20 acres of Southern Riparian Scrub, 1.28 acres of Chaparral and 78.15 acres of Riversidean Sage Scrub).
The Project would result in permanent impacts to vegetation communities described for conservation by the MSHCP associated with Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125 totaling 109.69 acres and would impact the following communities: chaparral (0.21 acre), Riversidean sage scrub (24.40 acres), non-native grassland (82.13 acres), and southern riparian scrub (0.03 acre). To offset these impacts, the Project will conserve 133.62 acres of replacement lands through the Criteria Refinement Process, including
0.32 acre of chaparral, 45.85 acres of Riversidean sage scrub, 86.03 acres of non-native grassland, and 0.22 acre of southern riparian scrub. These replacement lands are in areas that are not described for conservation by the Cell Criteria for Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125.
4.4.7 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project 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? The following discussion examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Impacts (or effects) can occur in two forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification, or disturbance of plant communities, which in turn, directly affect the flora and fauna of those habitats. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or animals, which may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability.
Indirect impacts pertain to those impacts that result in a change to the physical environment, but which is not immediately related to a project. Indirect (or secondary) impacts are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project but occur at a different time or place. Indirect impacts can occur at the urban/wildland interface of projects, to biological resources located downstream from projects, and other off -site areas where the effects of the project may be experienced by plants and wildlife.
Examples of indirect impacts include the effects of increases in ambient levels of noise or light; predation by domestic pets; competition with exotic plants and animals; introduction of toxics, including pesticides; and other human disturbances such as hiking, off -road vehicle use, unauthorized dumping, etc. Indirect impacts are often attributed to the subsequent day-to-day activities associated with project build -out, such as increased noise, the use of artificial light sources, and invasive ornamental plantings that may encroach into native areas. Indirect effects may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as "edge effects" and may result Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
ELIEnvironmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources in a slow replacement of native plants by non-native invasives, as well as changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites.
A. Special -Status Plants
As discussed above, no special -status plants were detected at the Project site during focused plant surveys. Therefore, the Project would not result in an impact to special -status plants, and no impact would occur.
8. Special -Status Animals
As discussed above, the Project site has the potential to support a number of species (raptors and bats), that might forage at the site, but would not otherwise use the site for live-in habitat, including for nesting (or roosting in the case of bats). As such, these impacts are not evaluated in the context of CEQA significance since special status for these species is in the context of breeding. The following special -status species have the potential to use the site as live-in habitat, including Crotch bumble bee, California glossy snake, coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, red -diamond rattlesnake, coastal California gnatcatcher, loggerhead shrike, American badger, bobcat, Dulzura pocket mouse, mountain lion, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, southern grasshopper mouse, SKR, and San Diego black - tailed jackrabbit.
1. Crotch Bumble Bee
Crotch bumble bee was not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within relatively flat areas vegetated with the Riversidean sage scrub community within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 58.13 acres of habitat with the potential to support Crotch bumble bee.
Furthermore, if Crotch bumble bee remains as a State Candidate Endangered species or has otherwise been confirmed as a State Endangered species at the time of Project site disturbance and the bumble bee is confirmed present, impacts to bumble bee would be potentially significant.
2. California Glossy Snake and Southern Grasshopper Mouse California Glossy Snake and Southern grasshopper mouse were not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site.
The Project would permanently impact up to 58.76 acres of habitat with the potential to support the California glossy snake and Southern grasshopper mouse. Although the California glossy snake and Southern grasshopper mouse are not covered species under the MSHCP, the conservation lands that comprise the MSHCP Reserve include habitat suitable to support these species on a regional level. As such, through the Project's participation in the MSHCP, from both the proposed conservation of open space with potential to support the glossy snake and grasshopper mouse and the payment of MSHCP development fees, impacts to the California glossy snake and Southern grasshopper mouse would be less than significant.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
3. Coast Horned Lizard and Coastal Whiptail
Coast horned lizard and costal whiptail were not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 58.76 acres of habitat with the potential to support both species. However, the coast horned lizard and costal whiptail are Covered Species under the MSHCP. Therefore, through the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open space with the potential to support these species, impacts to coast horned lizard and costal whiptail would be less than significant.
4. Red -diamond Rattlesnake
Red -diamond rattlesnake was observed within the Project site during field efforts and has the potential to occur more extensively within the chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 58.76 acres of habitat with the potential to support this species. However, the rattlesnake is a Covered Species under the MSHCP. Therefore, through the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open space with the potential to support the rattlesnake, impacts to red -diamond rattlesnake would be less than significant.
5. Bell's Sage Sparrow and Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow Bell's sage sparrow and Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow were observed within the chaparral and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 58.76 acres of habitat with the potential to support Bell's sage sparrow and Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow. However, both the Bell's sage sparrow and Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow are Covered Species under the MSHCP. Therefore, through the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open space with the potential to support these species, impacts to Bell's sage sparrow and Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow would be less than significant.
6. Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The coastal California gnatcatcher was not observed but has the potential to occur within the Riversidean sage scrub community within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 58.13 acres of habitat with the potential to support coastal California gnatcatcher. The coastal California gnatcatcher is a Covered Species and the Project's participation in the MSHCP would reduce impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher. However, Condition 5b of the USFWS MSHCP Take Permit places a seasonal restriction on the clearing of occupied coastal California gnatcatcher habitat, stating that the clearing of occupied habitat within Public/Quasi-Public Lands and the Criteria Area is prohibited between March 1 and August 15. Therefore, there is potential for the Project to impact coastal California gnatcatcher during construction activities.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
7. Loggerhead Shrike
Loggerhead shrike (SSC) was not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the chaparral, non-native grassland, and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 370.83 acres of habitat with the potential to support loggerhead shrike, although much of that habitat would be used for foraging purposes with the potential for nesting limited to areas with shrubs and trees. The loss of habitat with the potential to support the loggerhead shrike may be a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation depending on the extent of use. These impacts are addressed through consistency with the MSHCP, as the loggerhead shrike is a Covered Species, which as a part of consistency includes the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open space with the potential to support the shrike. As such, the Project's participation in the MSHCP would reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance.
8. American Badger
The American badger was not directly observed during overall biological survey efforts. However, several burrows were detected within the Project site that clearly were produced by badgers. The badger was assumed present based on the presence of burrows. The Project would impact up to 370.83 acres of habitats (grassland, Riversidean sage scrub, and chaparral) that could be used by badgers.
Although the approximate extent of site use by badger could not accurately be determined, the likely use area would be concentrated in the transitional grassland/scrub areas at the boundary between the impact footprint and the open space, and within the open space itself. Although the badger is not a covered species under the MSHCP, the conservation lands that comprise the MSHCP Reserve include habitat suitable to support this species on a regional level. Therefore, through the Project's participation in the MSHCP, including both the proposed conservation of open space with potential to support the badger and the payment of MSHCP development fees, impacts to the American badger would be less than significant.
9. Bobcat
The bobcat was confirmed present within the Project site through detection of tracks and scat, as well as using wildlife cameras. Although the bobcat does not have special status as a listed species or SSC, the bobcat is a MSHCP Covered Species and is a Planning Species for Proposed Core 3 to support movement and provide for live-in habitat. The Project would permanently impact up to 386.31 acres of habitat with the potential to support bobcat, including the support of local movement that is potentially significant. However, the Project is designed to support the MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3 through its proposed conservation lands (PDF 4-1), wildlife fencing, and management of edge effects that are discussed below. With the implementation of the Project, impacts to bobcat would be less than significant.
10. Dulzura Pocket Mouse
Dulzura pocket mouse was not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the chaparral, non-native grassland, and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 370.83 acres of habitat with the potential to support the pocket mouse.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Although the pocket mouse is not a covered species under the MSHCP, the conservation lands that comprise the MSHCP Reserve include habitat suitable to support this species on a regional level. As such, through the Project's participation in the MSHCP, including both the proposed conservation of open space with potential to support the pocket mouse and the payment of MSHCP development fees impacts to the Dulzura pocket mouse would be less than significant.
11. Mountain Lion
The mountain lion was confirmed present within the Project site through detection of tracks and scat.
As noted above, the mountain lion is currently a State Candidate for listing under CESA and a MSHCP Covered Species. Per the MSHCP, the mountain lion is a Planning Species for Proposed Core 3 to support movement and provide for live-in habitat. The Project would permanently impact up to 386.31 acres of habitat with the potential to support the mountain lion, including the support of local movement that is potentially significant. However, the Project is designed to support the MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3 through its proposed conservation lands, wildlife fencing, and management of edge effects that are discussed below. With the implementation of the Project, impacts to mountain lion would be reduced to below a level of significance.
12. Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse was not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the chaparral, non-native grassland, and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 370.83 acres of habitat with the potential to support Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse. However, the pocket mouse is a Covered Species under the MSHCP. Therefore, through the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open space with the potential to support the pocket mouse, impacts to the Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse would be less than significant.
13. Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR)
SKR was not observed incidentally but has the potential to occur within the non-native grassland community within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 312.07 acres of habitat with the potential to support SKR. However, the Project site occurs within the Fee Assessment Area of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habiat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP). All projects located within Fee Assessment Area are required to pay the SKR fee, which mitigates any impacts to SKR. With coverage afforded by the SKR HCP, impacts to SKR would be less than significant.
14. San Diego Black -tailed Jackrabbit
San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit was not observed but has the potential to occur within the non-native grassland and Riversidean sage scrub communities within the Project site. The Project would permanently impact up to 370.83 acres of habitat with the potential to support San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit. However, the San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit is a Covered Species under the MSHCP.
Therefore, through the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of open Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources space with the potential to support the jackrabbit, impacts to San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit would be less than significant.
15. Burrowing Owl
As discussed above, burrowing owls were not detected on -site during focused surveys. However, the Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owls and there is a potential for burrowing owls to occupy the Project site prior to the commencement of construction activities. Therefore, impacts to burrowing owl would be potentially significant.
C. Summary of Direct Impacts
The Project is not required per the MSHCP to conduct presence/absence surveys for any of the above - referenced species, either because the species are fully covered and the MSHCP does not have any project -specific survey requirements for these species, or the species are not covered and survey requirements were not developed for the MSHCP. For the majority of these species, including the reptiles, loggerhead shrike, and small mammals, either there is no established survey protocol for the species or the extensive survey efforts to confirm the presence/absence of these species is not warranted. Since focused surveys were not performed for these species to confirm absence, or to determine the extent of site use by the one or more species if present, then the alternative is to acknowledge the possibility of occurrence based on the presence of suitable habitat. The likelihood is that certain species, if present, occupy a smaller portion of the site, and that although the loss of habitat might impact one or more species, impacts are not expected to be considered as "substantial adverse" impacts that would trigger a determination of significance. The coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, red -diamond rattlesnake, coastal California gnatcatcher, loggerhead shrike, bobcat, mountain lion, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, SKR and San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit are all MSHCP Covered Species. As such, through the participation in the MSHCP, including the payment of MSHCP development fees, impacts to these species would be less than significant. In addition, the species receive coverage under the MSHCP because lands have adequately been conserved throughout the Plan area to support coverage. Furthermore, given that adequate conservation is provided within western Riverside County for these species, the loss of habitat because of the Project would not be a substantial adverse effect to the species at the local level.
California glossy snake, American badger, Dulzura pocket mouse and southern grasshopper mouse are not designated as Covered Species under the MSHCP as sufficient information was not available to make that determination when the MSHCP was approved. Crotch bumble bee is not a Covered Species because at the time that the MSHCP was approved the bumble bee was not regarded with a level of sensitivity to warrant consideration. Regardless of whether these species have an official designation as a Covered Species, the lands collectively conserved as part of the MSHCP Reserve are certain to provide habitat for these species, and through participation of the Project in the MSHCP, including the proposed conservation of 230.82 acres of lands with potential habitat for these species, impacts to these species would be less than significant.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources However, the Project would result in potential impacts to crotch bumble bee, coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl during construction activities. Therefore, impacts to special -status animals would be potentially significant.
D. Indirect Impacts
In the context of biological resources, indirect edge effects are those effects associated with developing areas adjacent to adjacent native open space. The MSHCP acknowledges that in the absence of measures to address urban edge effects to open space, it is assumed that edge effects resulting from development or land use practices in proximity to conserved habitat areas include: 1) long-term presence of unshielded noise -generating land uses in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area; 2) unshielded night -lighting directed within the MSHCP Conservation Area; 3) use of exotic landscape plant materials that may invade native vegetation communities within the MSHCP Conservation Area; 4) discharge of uncontrolled or unfiltered urban runoff toward the MSHCP Conservation Area, including potential toxics; and 5) uncontrolled access, dumping or trespass within the MSHCP Conservation Area. In absence of measures to address these issues, edge effects would have the potential for significant indirect impacts to native biological resources. As such, projects located adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area are required to implement measures pursuant to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines per Volume I, Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. With adherence to the guidelines, projects are expected to minimize potential edge effects such that a project will not have significant impacts to sensitive resources because of indirect edge effects. As discussed below, the Project would implement measures consistent with the MSHCP guidelines to address the following:
drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasives, barriers, and grading/land development.
1. Drainage
Projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area are expected to incorporate measures 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. This includes measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 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.
The watershed from the proposed developed areas of the Project site flows generally to the north, off - site into 16 culverts under the SR -60 freeway. The Project would maintain the 16 existing culverts under the freeway as the ultimate discharge locations for the Project but the runoff from the proposed buildings, parking lots, and road improvements would be collected by a proposed drainage system.
The proposed drainage system would consist of catch basins, grated inlets, storm drainpipes with sizes varying from 18 to 48 inches, and four detention basins. The drainage system routes the runoff from Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
the proposed impervious surfaces to four proposed stormwater treatment and mitigation basins. Each basin provides stormwater treatment and peak flow mitigation for each of their respective tributaries to prevent the post -development flows from exceeding the pre -development flows. Basins would be maintained by the Master Property Owners' Association, through access and maintenance easements with owners of each property where basins are located. The Project's contractor would also develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for runoff and water quality during construction. Refer to EIR Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a full discussion on the Project's drainage and water quality.
2. Toxics
Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts 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 discussed above will be implemented.
The Project would implement a SWPPP that would address runoff during construction. In addition, following the completion of activities, runoff from any developed or paved areas (including landscaped areas) would be treated prior to draining into undeveloped areas.
3. Lighting
The Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines expect that night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species from direct night lighting. If night lighting is required during construction or as part of the development project, shielding shall be incorporated to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased, i.e., the Project cannot result in light spillage into the Conservation Area such that the baseline ambient lighting is increased.
A lighting analysis/illumination study (Technical Appendix N to this EIR) has been prepared for the Project demonstrating that the Project's night lighting would not increase light levels in the adjacent Conservation Area. As shown in Figure 3-7, the Project's Land Use Plan includes the industrial and commercial development, surrounded by the Project Maintained Open Space (PA 9), which then abuts the proposed Open Space - Conservation lands (PA 10) that would be part of the MSHCP Conservation Area. The nearest night lighting to the Conservation Area would be placed around the perimeter of the development areas such that the Project's PA 9 would serve as a buffer between the development and the Conservation Area. Furthermore, light fixtures would be down shielded and would face inwards towards the inside of the Project site, such that the light fixtures would not result in any illumination in the Conservation Area, and the ambient baseline within the Conservation Area would not increase.
4. Noise
Pursuant to the MSHCP, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. The MSHCP does not specify a noise level as the Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources "residential standard, " nor does the MSHCP differentiate between daytime and nighttime levels, and the standard varies depending on the Lead Agency jurisdiction. Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise standards.
As shown in Figure 4.13-2, Noise Receiver Locations, in Section 4.13, Noise of this EIR, a total of five receiver locations were considered in the noise analysis. In addition, receiver locations BIO-1, BIO-2 and BIO-3 represent the existing open space areas and potential sensitive receiver location for biological resources. Four of the sensitive receivers (R1 through R4) are located well away from the Project site in surrounding communities and are not relevant to impacts to biological resources.
However, R5 is located immediately east of the proposed off -site conservation lands (replacement lands to support the Criteria Refinement). The following provides the locations of the four receptors for consideration of noise edge effects to wildlife:
• BIO-1 — located near the box culvert wildlife undercrossing of the SR -60, approximately 175 feet north of the Project site. BIO-1 represents the wildlife undercrossing and the proposed conservation lands south of the culvert and west of the proposed development footprint.
• BIO-2 — located between the Project site and the SR -60, approximately 184 feet northeast of the Project site. BIO-2 is located on the opposite side of the SR -60 from the existing conservation lands (Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands) associated with San Timeteo Wash.
• BIO-3 — located within existing conservation lands approximately 164 feet southwest of the Project site adjacent to additional lands proposed for conservation by the Project. • R5 — represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 13270 Jack Rabbit Trail (Hoy Ranch), approximately 92 feet south of the Project site and approximately 300 feet from the proposed off -site conservation lands. R5 is placed at the private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site. A 24 -hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
Construction Noise Impacts
Construction noise levels were evaluated for construction equipment associated with grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating. The highest construction noise levels for all four receiver sites are attributed to grading, with slightly lower levels for the other construction activities.
As shown in 0,
Summary of Construction Noise Levels, Project construction would not cause noise levels at receiver locations would range from 73.4 dBA Leq to 77.7 dBA Leq. Acceptable exterior construction noise level threshold is based on the City of Beaumont 55 dBA Leq interior noise level limit and the 20 dBA noise reduction associated with typical building construction. However, this threshold is not applicable to Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ D Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources biological impacts, and instead the biological analysis must only consider the noise levels and their sources, the duration of the noise, and the time of day that the noise will occur. Construction by its very nature generates noise levels that will temporarily exceed those of ambient levels and typical project operational levels. However, construction activities will occur over a short duration, will only occur during daytime hours, with the exception of potential nighttime concrete pour activities, and noise levels will vary throughout the day depending on the equipment being used. In addition, the Project is not located in immediate proximity to riparian habitats that support sensitive riparian species such as the least Bell's vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher. Furthermore, as discussed below, the Project will incorporate mitigation measures that would avoid and minimize impacts during the breeding season, including general nesting bird surveys with temporary setback buffers from any active nests, pre -construction burrowing owl surveys with temporary setback buffers from any occupied burrows, and the avoidance of habitat occupied by coastal California gnatcatchers from March 1 and August 15. Lastly, the aforementioned species are all designated as MSHCP Covered Species, and therefore impacts (including indirect noise impacts) are covered by the MSHCP provided that projects would comply with all applicable MSHCP requirements. Accordingly, Project construction impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.
Table 4.4-7 Summary of Construction Noise Levels
Receiver
Grading
(dBA Leq)
Building
Construction
(dBA Leq)
Paving
(dBA Leq)
Architectural
Coating
(dBA Leq)
Highest Levels
(dBA Leq)
BIO-1
74.4 67.4
65.4 62.4
74.4 BIO-2
75.2 68.2
66.2 63.2
75.2 BIO-3
77.7 70.7
68.7 65.7
77.7 R5
73.4 66.4
64.4 61.4
73.4 Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 5-6)
Operational Noise Impacts
Operational noise levels (daytime and nighttime) were evaluated for loading dock activities, truck movements, roof -top air conditionings units, parking lot vehicle movements, and trash enclosure activities. As shown in Table 4.4-8, Summary of Operational Noise Levels, Project stationary noise would not expose nearby receivers to unacceptable daytime or nighttime noise levels during Project operations following Project buildout, with the exception of BIO-2 and BIO-3 during nighttime.
However, the location of the BIO-2 is between the Project site and the SR -60 with nearest open space located on the opposite side of the freeway, approximately twice the distance from the nearest operational noise sources at the BIO-2 receiver site. Similarly, the location of the BIO-3 is at the very edge of the Proposed Core 3 open space away from the interior of the Core and primary wildlife use areas and would not affect wildlife movement in Proposed Core 3 and would not result in significant impacts to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, operation noise level impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Table 4.4-8 Summary of Operational Noise Levels
Receiver
Location
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?
Day
Night
Day
Night
Day
Night
BIO-1
42.2 42.2
55 45
No
No
BIO-2
46.2 46.1
55 45
No
Yes
BIO-3
52.0 52.0
55 45
No
Yes
R5
43.0 42.7
55 45
No
No
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 5-5)
Vibration and Blasting Impacts
Although not addressed by the MSHCP and not directly applicable to wildlife noise impact analyses, the Noise Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix J to this EIR) addressed vibration levels and blasting impacts from construction. The vibration and blasting analyses were not designed to address wildlife but focused on human impacts in residential areas. However, vibration and blasting levels are all projected to be within acceptable ranges per residential standards. Construction vibration levels are estimated to range from 19.6 to 50.3 VdB and would remain below the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual maximum acceptable vibration criteria of 78 VdB for daytime residential uses at the five residential receiver locations. Therefore, the Project -related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site.
Furthermore, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. Although vibration levels were not analyzed for the BIO-1, 2 and 3 receivers, the R5 receiver provides a comparable analysis for the BIO receivers due to its proximity to the proposed open space.
Blasting, if needed, would be limited to a small ridgeline area in the southeastern portion of the Project site near the existing Jack Rabbit Trail and would be limited to a short daytime duration. The calculated airblast levels from the worst -case (closest) Project blasting activities are expected to be as high as 111 dB at nearest receiver site (R5), which would be under the 133 dB airblast threshold, and ranging from 88 to 101 dB for the other four residential receivers. Although blasting levels were not projected for the BIO receivers, their distance from the nearest blasting is comparable to the other residential receivers. Therefore, aligning with residential standards, the Project -related airblast noise level impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site.
5. Invasives
Projects adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall avoid the use of invasive plant species in landscaping, including invasive, non-native plant species listed in Volume I, Table 6-2 of the MSHCP.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
6. 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 in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage, and/or other appropriate mechanisms.
As described below under threshold d, the Project would erect wildlife fencing along the southern and western limits of the development footprint, connecting with SR -60 wildlife fencing, to provide a barrier between the edge of the development footprint and the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Area.
Although the fence is designed to minimize wildlife entering the Project site, it would also function to minimize unauthorized public access to the MSHCP Conservation Area.
7. Grading/Land Development
The MSHCP states that manufactured slopes associated with development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.
The Project would conduct remedial grading within the Project's PA 9 to construct manufactured slopes. However, these manufactured slopes will not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.
Threshold b: Would the Project 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
A. Sensitive Vegetation Communities
As shown in Table 4.4-9, Summary of Vegetation Community/Land Cover Impacts, and Figure 4.4-7, Vegetation Impacts Map, the Project would result in a permanent impact to approximately 58.76 acres of native vegetation communities (Chaparral, Riversidean Sage Scrub and Southern Riparian Scrub) and 328.71 acres of non-native habitats (non-native grassland) and disturbed/developed areas. As discussed above, Southern Riparian Scrub is considered to be a sensitive community in general as a "riparian" community. However, based on state rankings, the Riversidean sage scrub and chaparral communities are not sensitive. These vegetation communities could potentially support special -status animal species. These impacts are addressed through consistency with the MSHCP, which includes the payment of MSHCP development fees and the proposed conservation of 230.82 acres of open space, including 80.63 acres of native vegetation communities (1.20 acres of Southern Riparian Scrub, 1.28 acres of Chaparral and 78.15 acres of Riversidean Sage Scrub). Therefore, through the Project's participation in the MSHCP, impacts to vegetation communities would be less than significant.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Table 4.4-9 Summary of Vegetation Community/Land Cover Impacts Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type
Total Impacts
Chaparral3
0.60 Non-native Grassland2
312.07
Riversidean Sage Scrub'
58.13 Southern Riparian Scrub1'3
0.03 Disturbed
15.48 Developed
1.16 Total
387.47
1 classified as a type of riparian vegetation.
2 non-native vegetation
3 native vegetation
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Table 5-1)
8. Riparian Habitat
As shown in Figure 4.4-8, Corps/Regional Board Jurisdictional Delineation/Impact Map, the Project would result in a permanent impact to 0.43 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, of which 0.03 acre supports riparian habitat. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitat would be potentially significant.
Threshold c: Would the Project have substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Approximately 0.02 acre of potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdictional wetlands are present within Drainage L within the Project site; however, this portion of Drainage L is located outside of the development footprint. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of state or federally protected wetlands, and no impact would occur. The Project would, however, result in impacts to drainages considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, and/or CDFW. The Project's impacts to jurisdictional waters are discussed below.
A. Impacts to Corps and Regional Board Jurisdiction
Table 4.4-10, Summary of Impacts to Potential Corps and Regional Board Jurisdiction, summarizes impacts to potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdiction. The Project would impact approximately
0.31 acre (5,506 linear feet) of potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdictional resources but would not result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, as depicted in Figure 4.4-8. Project impacts to Corps jurisdiction would require a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA from the Regional Board. Impacts to Regional Board jurisdiction Waters of the U.S. would require water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA from the Regional Board and impacts to Regional Board jurisdictional Waters of the State would require a Waste Discharge Order from the Regional Board. Therefore, impacts to Corps and Regional Board jurisdiction would be potentially significant.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Table 4.4-10 Summary of Impacts to Potential Corps and Regional Board Jurisdiction Drainage Name
Non -Wetland Waters
(acres)
Wetlands (acres)
Total (acres)
Linear Feet
Drainage B
0.12 0.00
0.12 1,008
Drainage C
0.01 0.00
0.01 381
Drainage E
0.01 0.00
0.01 7
Drainage G
0.08 0.00
0.08 1,048
Drainage I
0.03 0.00
0.03 969
Tributary I-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 533
Tributary I-2
0.01 0.00
0.01 501
Tributary I-3
0.03 0.00
0.03 954
Drainage L
0.01 0.00
0.01 105
Total
0.31 0.00
0.31 5,506
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Tables 5-2 and 5-3)
8. Impacts to CDFW Jurisdiction
As summarized in Table 4.4-11, Summary of CDFW Jurisdictional Impacts, summarizes impacts to potential CDFW jurisdiction. The Project would result in impacts to 0.43 acre (5,506 linear feet) of CDFW jurisdiction, which includes 0.40 acre of non -riparian streambed and 0.03 acre of jurisdictional riparian habitat, as depicted in Figure 4.4-9, CDFW/MSHCP Jurisdictional Delineation/Impact Map.
Impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would require a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to CFGC Section 1602. Therefore, impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would be potentially significant.
Table 4.4-11 Summary of CDFW Jurisdictional Impacts
Drainage Name
Non -Riparian (acres)
Riparian (acres)
Total (acres)
Linear Feet
Drainage B
0.12 0.00
0.12 1,008
Drainage C
0.03 0.00
0.03 381
Drainage E
0.01 0.00
0.01 7
Drainage G
0.12 0.00
0.12 1,048
Drainage I
0.04 0.03
0.07 969
Tributary I-1
0.01 0.00
0.01 533
Tributary I-2
0.01 0.00
0.01 501
Tributary I-3
0.05 0.00
0.05 954
Drainage L
0.01 0.00
0.01 105
Total
0.40 0.03
0.43 5,506
Source: (GLA, 2022a , Tables 5-4)
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont
SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
•
Environmental Impact Report
4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold d: Would the Project 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? A. Wildlife Corridor
As discussed above, the Project site provides for the local movement of wildlife, including mountain lion, mule deer, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, and other smaller mammals, as well as general habitat, including live-in habitat for some species. As such, the Project would result in impacts to the local movement of wildlife through the Project site. However, the Project is designed to support the MSHCP goals pertaining to movement, specifically as it relates to supporting the goals of Proposed Core 3. The supporting design elements of the Project include 1) conserving the lands required by the MSHCP to support the assembly and function of Proposed Core 3; 2) installing and maintaining fencing that would separate the development footprint (including the Project's managed open space buffer) from Proposed Core 3 conservation lands; and 3) managing edge effects between the Project and the conserved lands, including lighting and noise.
The Project would conserve 230.82 acres of lands that would support the function of Proposed Core 3 consistent with the MSHCP goals of providing live-in habitat and facilitating movement, including 152.42 acres on -site and 78.40 acres off -site. As Proposed Core 3 extends from northwest to southeast, the Core is bisected by SR -60 to the west of the Project. As such, the SR -60 provides a constraint to movement of wildlife through Proposed Core 3. MSHCP Volume I, Section 7.5.2 provides guidelines for the construction of wildlife crossings associated with roadway projects. The MSHCP notes undercrossing structures of varying sizes should be included in a long road alignment to accommodate small, medium, and large wildlife, with multiple undercrossings for each size group depending on the length of the roadway. Caltrans is currently constructing the SR -60 Truck Lanes Project which extends for approximately 4.75 miles from approximately Gilman Springs Road on the west to a point about one mile east of the western limits of the Project site. The Caltrans work is expected to be completed by the time that construction of the Project would begin, therefore, Project components including proposed fencing would tie in consistently with the SR -60 improvements.
As part of the SR -60 improvements, Caltrans is constructing eight all-weather undercrossing structures specifically for wildlife, including two 20 -foot -tall by 20 -foot -wide box culverts to accommodate larger wildlife (mule deer, mountain lion, and bobcat) and six smaller undercrossings. The smaller structures consist of a combination of corrugated metal pipes (CMPs), reinforced concrete pipes (RCPs) and arch concrete pipes (ACPs). Three of the eight undercrossings are being constructed for the section of the SR -60 improvements that abut the northern Project boundary, including one 60 -inch pipe at the western end of the Project site, one of the 20 -foot by 20 -foot culverts approximately 0.50 mile along the Project boundary east of the 60 -inch pipe, and one 36 -inch pipe another 0.50 mile to the east of the box culvert. Wildlife expected to occur at the Project site with the potential to use these three features include medium to large -sized mammals such as mule deer, mountain lion, bobcat and coyote, smaller mammals such as gray fox, raccoon and rodents, and other smaller wildlife such as reptiles and amphibians. The remaining five Caltrans undercrossings are being constructed west of the Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ u Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Project site, with the second 20 -foot by 20 -foot culvert located approximately one -mile west of the Project site. Figure 4.4-10, Proposed SR -60 Wildlife Crossings Map, depicts the locations of all eight of the proposed undercrossings associated with the SR -60 project.
Conservation proposed by the Project includes the northwestern corner of Cell 933, which based on the existing Cell Criteria is not described for conservation. The northwestern portion of Cell 933 is located adjacent to the Caltrans box culvert and based on the existing Cell Criteria the box culvert might not be properly connected to the Proposed Core 3 open space. As such, one benefit of the Criteria Refinement is to place this portion of the Cell into conservation such that undercrossing is properly connected to the main portion of the Proposed Core 3 to the southwest.
The SR -60 improvements include a wildlife fence along both the northern and southern edges of the SR -60 to minimize wildlife from entering the roadway and direct wildlife to the areas north and south of the freeway. As shown in Figure 4.4-11, Proposed Fencing and SR -60 Crossings Map, the eastern terminus of the SR -60 fence is being constructed just east of the proposed 36 -inch pipe culvert. The proposed Project would similarly construct a wildlife fence along the western and southern edges of the Project site to prevent wildlife from entering the site from the adjacent conserved lands. The fence would be constructed approximately along the boundary between the proposed conserved lands (PA 10) and the Project's PA 9, although the exact location would vary depending on the topography. The Project's fence would tie into the SR -60 fence at the easternmost proposed wildlife CMP and would extend west and then south/southeast around the Project to direct wildlife in the northwesterly/southeasterly direction. The wildlife fencing along the Project boundary would include one-way swing gates opening into the MSHCP conservation area for any wildlife that enter the Project site from the north and east trying to escape into the adjacent conserved lands. In addition to the wildlife fence, the Project would also include six-foot tubular steel security fencing along the northern boundary abutting the SR -60 Right of way, beginning from the wildlife fence on the west and extending east to the Project's entry point. Wildlife that either cross over or under the SR -60 east of the Caltrans wildlife fence terminus would be forced to the west or east along the security fence. A swing gate would be installed to the west along the section of lateral (north -south) wildlife fence connecting to the SR -60 fence, allowing wildlife to escape the freeway right-of-way towards the conserved lands.
As further discussed above under threshold a, the Project through its design would also address edge effects relative to adjacent conserved lands. The Project's night lighting would be designed to prevent spillage into the MSHCP conserved lands along the western and southern development boundary. As such, consistent with the MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines (MSHCP Volume I, Section
6.1.4) night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. Regarding noise, the Project's Maintained Open Space (i.e., PA 9) would serve as a buffer between the main development footprint and the proposed conservation lands, such that wildlife within the adjacent conserved lands would not be subjected to noise that exceeds residential standards.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources In conclusion, although the Project would result in impacts to lands that support the local movement of wildlife, the Project is designed to support the MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3 through its proposed conservation lands, wildlife fencing, and management of edge effects. Through compliance with MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3, impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant.
B. Native Wildlife Nursery Sites
The Project site does not represent a nursery site. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to a native wildlife nursery site. However, the Project site contains vegetation with the potential to support native nesting birds. Impacts to nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and CFGC. Since the Project has the potential to impact active nests regulated by the MBTA and CFGC, Project impacts to nesting birds represents a significant impact of the Project for which mitigation in the form of pre -construction surveys and avoidance of active nests would be required.
Threshold e: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? As discussed in EIR Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, the Project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies pertaining to biological resources. The City of Beaumont does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Threshold f Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The Project site is located in the MSHCP Criteria Area, within portions of independent Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125, as well as a portion of Cell Group A', divided between two Area Plans: The Pass Area Plan (Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125) and the Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan (Cell Group A'). The Project is subject to the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process in coordination with the City of Beaumont. The Project will be subject to Joint Project Review (JPR) by the RCA in order for the RCA to determine that the Project will be consistent with the MSHCP. The Project's compliance with MSHCP Reserve assembly requirements, Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface), and Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), is provided below.
• Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2): The Project site supports 1.18 acres of riparian habitat and 2.57 acre of riverine streambed. Although riparian habitat is present within the Project site in the form of Southern Riparian Scrub, this community does not have the potential to support least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow -billed cuckoo. Within the Project site, this community is comprised of individual trees and shrubs with an herbaceous Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ O Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources understory, and does not contain a stratified canopy or support the structural complexity required to support these species.
The Project site does not contain any depressions (natural or artificial) that would inundate long enough to support resources associated with vernal pools, including fairy shrimp. The soils mapped within the Project site are categorized as sandy loam soils, which are generally not associated with vernal pools, and direct observations of the soils within the Project site showed a lack of clay soil components. Road ruts are generally not allowed to develop or persist for durations long enough to support resources associated with pools due to regular maintenance of the access roads within the Project site. Regular maintenance keeps these roads free of ruts and washouts, in order to allow operations and maintenance of various utilities (i.e., Southern California Edison transmission towers and a SoCal Gas transmission pipeline), as well as access to commercial apiary operations. In addition, no plant species were observed within the Project site that are associated with vernal pools and similar habitats that experience prolonged inundation.
The Project would result in impacts to 0.03 acre of riparian habitat and 0.40 acre of riverine streambed. Therefore, a Demonstration of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) would be required for impacts to Riparian/Riverine resources. A DBESP would be completed as part of the Project. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP.
• Protection of Narrow Endemic Plants (Section 6.1.3): Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA), site -specific focused surveys for Narrow Endemic Plants Species will be required for all public and private projects where appropriate soils and habitat are present.
No special -status plant species were observed within the Project site during focused plant surveys. The Project site occurs within NEPSSA 8; therefore, the following target species were evaluated: many -stemmed dudleya and Yucaipa onion. As discussed above, these species are not expected to occur due to a lack of suitable (clay) soils and were not detected during focused surveys. Therefore, these species were confirmed to be absent from the Project site and the Project would not result in impacts to NEPSSA species; therefore, the Project is consistent with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.
• Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4): The MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. As the MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled, development is expected to occur adjacent to the Conservation Area. Future development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area may result in edge effects with the potential to adversely affect biological resources within the Conservation Area. To minimize such edge effects, the guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. As discussed in threshold a, the Project will Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources implement applicable measures as it relates to temporary construction impacts to minimize adverse indirect impacts on special -status resources within Conserved Lands. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. • Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (Section 6.3.2): The Project site is not located within a CAPSSA, Mammal Survey Area, or Amphibian Survey Area, and does not support suitable habitat for riparian/riverine associated species (i.e. listed fairy shrimp, least Bell's vireo); therefore, surveys for these species were not required and impacts would not result from the Project.
The Project site is located within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area. Focused surveys were conducted during the 2019 burrowing owl breeding season, with negative results.
Regardless, at a minimum, a 30 -day preconstruction survey will be conducted immediately prior to the initiation of construction to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined in the MSHCP. If burrowing owls are detected on - site during the 30 -day preconstruction survey, a burrowing owl relocation plan will be developed for the passive/active translocation of individuals as directed by the RCA and wildlife agencies. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2, the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
As outlined above, the Project would be consistent with the biological requirements of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements, Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface), and Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures). However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4- 2 would be required to ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures) of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements for Burrowing Owl. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.
4.4.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the Project site. The cumulative impact evaluation also takes into consideration the geographic area covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, which is the prevailing habitat conservation plan applicable to the Project site.
The temporary direct and/or indirect impacts of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to environmental resources within the region of the Project site. Cumulative impacts refer to incremental effects of an individual project when assessed with the effects of past, current, and proposed projects. The MSHCP was developed to address the comprehensive regional planning effort and anticipated growth in the City of Beaumont. The Project would result in permanent impacts to vegetation communities described for conservation by the MSHCP associated with Cells 933, 936, 1030, 1032, and 1125 totaling 109.69 acres and would impact the following communities: chaparral Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
■ L Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources (0.21 acre), Riversidean sage scrub (24.40 acres), non-native grassland (82.13 acres), and southern riparian scrub (0.03 acre). To offset these impacts, the Project would conserve 133.62 acres of replacement lands, including 0.32 acre of chaparral, 45.85 acres of Riversidean sage scrub, 86.03 acres of non-native grassland, and 0.22 acre of southern riparian scrub consistent with the MSHCP.
Additionally, the Project would potentially impact MSHCP covered species (coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, red -diamond rattlesnake, coastal California gnatcatcher, loggerhead shrike, bobcat, mountain lion, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, SKR and San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit).
Impacts to covered species would be mitigated through a combination of general MSHCP compliance, pre -construction surveys, protection plans and avoidance, as required (Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.4-1, MM 4.4-2, MM 4.4-3, and MM 4.4-5). Non -covered sensitive floral species were not detected or expected to occur within or adjacent to the Project and therefore the development of the Project site would not result or contribute to a cumulative impact to non -covered species. A few non -covered sensitive faunal species have potential to occur within the Project site, and so the Project could contribute to a cumulative impact for these species. However, adequate lands would be conserved by the Project as part of the MSHCP conservation to address these species and reduce any impacts to below a level of significance. Furthermore, the Project has been designed and mitigated to remain in compliance with all MSHCP conservation goals and guidelines and therefore would not result in an adverse cumulative impact.
The Project would also impact jurisdictional waters (0.31 acres of Corps and Regional Board jurisdiction, and 0.43 acres of CDFW jurisdiction and MSHCP riparian/riverine resources, of which
0.03 acre is vegetated riparian habitat). Through the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4- 4, the Project would be required to purchase wetland/riparian habitat establishment and/or rehabilitation credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
The proposed Project would impact local movement routes for wildlife but would conserve lands contributing to the assembly of the adjacent Proposed Core 3 and would therefore support the MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3, including the movement of wildlife through Proposed Core 3. As such, the Project would not result or contribute to a cumulative impact to wildlife movement or corridors.
4.4.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Significant Direct Impact. No special -status plants were detected at the Project site during focused plant surveys; therefore, no impact to special -status plants would occur. The Project would result in potential impacts to crotch bumble bee, coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl during construction activities. Therefore, impacts to special -status animals would be potentially significant.
Threshold b: Significant Direct Impact. The Project would result in a permanent impact to 0.43 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas, of which 0.03 acre supports riparian habitat. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitat would be potentially significant.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■ ■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
• ❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources Threshold c: Significant Direct Impact. The Project site does not contain any State- or federally - protected wetlands, and therefore the Project would not impact wetlands. However, the Project would result in impacts to 0.31 acre (5,506 linear feet) of potential Corps and Regional Board jurisdictional resources and 0.43 acre (5,506 linear feet) of CDFW jurisdiction. Project impacts to waters considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, and/or CDFW represent a significant impact of the proposed Project.
Threshold d: Significant Direct Impact. Although the Project would result in impacts to lands that support the local movement of wildlife, the Project is designed to support the MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3 through its proposed conservation lands, wildlife fencing, and management of edge effects. Through compliance with MSHCP goals for Proposed Core 3, impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant. However, the Project has the potential to impact nesting migratory birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, should habitat removal occur during the nesting season and should nesting birds be present. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds would be potentially significant.
Threshold e: No Impact. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Threshold f: Significant Direct and Cumulatively -Considerable Impact. The Project would be consistent with the biological requirements of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements, Section
6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface), and Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures). However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 would be required to ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures) of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements for Burrowing Owl. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.
4.4.10 MITIGATION
MM 4.4-1
MM 4.4-2
Prior to initial ground -disturbing activities (including vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.), a qualified biologist will conduct a pre -construction presence/absence survey for crotch bumble bee prior to site disturbance. If the bumble bee were to be detected (or assumed present) within the development footprint, then the Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW to address the extent of impacts and determine whether an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) would be required. If an ITP were required, then mitigation may be required by CDFW as part of the ITP process, and the conservation of the comparable open space habitat within PA 10 would be presented to support the ITP.
Prior to initial ground -disturbing activities (including vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.), a qualified biologist will conduct a pre -construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owls Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
within 30 days to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding the ground -disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of ground -disturbing activities, the project proponent will immediately inform and coordinate with the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW, USFWS) to prepare a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan (if required), prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground -disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre -construction survey will again be necessary to ensure burrowing owl has not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owl is found, the same coordination described above will be necessary. The Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, if necessary, will describe methods to safely relocate burrowing owls from the Project site (if avoidance were infeasible) and to monitor burrowing owls with an adequate setback buffer if construction would proceed at the site until the owls could be relocated.
MM 4.4-3
Prior to the issuance of grading permits or other permits allowing for ground -disturbing activities or the removal of vegetation on -site, the City of Beaumont Department of Public Works shall ensure that the following note is included on the grading plans.
Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with this note and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Beaumont staff or its designee to confirm compliance. This note also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors.
Ground -disturbing activities (including vegetation removal) within the Criteria Area (Criteria Cells) shall be conducted outside of the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season (between March 1 and August 15) if occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher. If ground -disturbing activities (including vegetation removal) cannot be limited to outside the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -construction presence/absence survey for coastal California gnatcatcher within 14 days prior to site disturbance. If the species is found, the Project proponent shall immediately inform the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW, USFWS) and ground disturbing activities within these areas will be postponed to outside of the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season. If the species is not found, no further action is needed.
MM 4.4-4 Prior to issuance of grading permits or other permits authorizing ground disturbance (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging), the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Beaumont that impacts to 0.31 acre of Corps jurisdiction and Regional Board jurisdiction, and 0.43 acre of CDFW jurisdiction and MSHCP riparian/riverine resources (including 0.03 acre of riparian habitat) have been mitigated through either the purchase wetland/riparian habitat establishment and/or rehabilitation credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Approved Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
■■ Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
M❑ Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources mitigation banks and/or in -lieu fee programs include, but are not limited to, the Riverpark Mitigation Bank, the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District In -Lieu Fee Program, and the Riverside -Corona Resource Conservation District In -Lieu Fee Program. In addition, and also prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Beaumont of a copy of the Project's CWA Section 404 permit from the Corps, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Board, Waste Discharge Order from the Regional Board, and Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW, as applicable.
MM 4.4-5
Prior to the issuance of grading permits or other permits allowing for ground -disturbing activities or the removal of vegetation on -site, the City of Beaumont Department of Public Works shall ensure that the following note is included on the grading plans.
Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with this note and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Beaumont staff or its designee to confirm compliance. This note also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors.
As feasible, vegetation clearing shall be conducted outside of the nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through September 15. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.
4.4.11 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less -than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 would ensure that appropriate preconstruction surveys are conducted prior to ground -disturbing activities and/or vegetation removal for bumble bees and an ITP be obtained, as necessary. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2 would ensure that appropriate preconstruction surveys are conducted prior to ground -disturbing activities and/or vegetation removal, and would ensure that owls are relocated following the Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, if necessary. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-3 would ensure that appropriate pre - construction surveys are conducted if ground -disturbing activities (including vegetation removal) within the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season. Implementation of the required mitigation measures would reduce Project impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species, including the crotch bumble bee, coastal California gnatcatcher and burrowing owl, to less - than -significant levels.
Threshold b: Less -than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4 would ensure that Project impacts to 0.43 acre of MSHCP riparian/riverine Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007
N M
■ u
Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Biological Resources
resources (including 0.03 acre of riparian habitat) are mitigated through either the purchase wetland/riparian habitat establishment and/or rehabilitation credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project's impacts to riparian habitat to less -than -significant levels.
Threshold c: Less -than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-4 would ensure that Project impacts to 0.31 acre of Corps jurisdiction and Regional Board jurisdiction, and 0.43 acre of CDFW jurisdiction are mitigated through either the purchase wetland/riparian habitat establishment and/or rehabilitation credits from an approved mitigation bank/in-lieu fee program at a minimum 1:1 ratio. The required mitigation also would ensure that the Project Applicant obtains appropriate permits from the Corps, Regional Board, and/or CDFW.
Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project's impacts to jurisdictional waters to less -than -significant levels.
Threshold d: Less -than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-5 would ensure that appropriate pre -construction surveys are conducted during the bird nesting season and would ensure that impacts to any active nests are avoided. Implementation of the required mitigation would reduce the Project's potential impacts to nesting birds to less -than - significant levels
Threshold f: Less -than -Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2 would be required to ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures) of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements for Burrowing Owl. Implementation of the required mitigation would ensure the Project's consistency with the MSHCP.
Lead Agency: City of Beaumont SCH No. 2020099007