of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee (DOC 2022a).
While the alignment crosses farmland of local importance, the proposed pipeline would be installed within the right-of-way and not be constructed within the open space areas. The installation of the Proposed Project does not include construction of any buildings or facilities that would result in converting the farmland properties into non -farmlands. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts related to farmlands.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is surrounded by areas zoned for mixed use, mixed use residential, manufacturing, community commercial with TOD overlay recreation/conservation, and residential single family. There are no areas adjacent to or on the Proposed Project site that are zoned for agricultural use, and it is not located on land under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. Please refer to discussion on Section 4.2.1 impact b). The City does not have any designated forest lands or timberland. Although open space is present throughout the City, these portions of the City would not be significantly impacted by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not take place within the forest lands. The Proposed Project would be compatible with the existing uses in the surrounding area. The Project would not result in an impact associated with forest land or timberland.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use? No Impact. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in any change to land use on the Project Site. The Proposed Project does not contain forest lands or lands for forest uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an impact associated with forest land or the conversion of forest land into non -forest use. Therefore, there would not be a loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use and no impact would occur. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non forest use?
No Impact. There are no agricultural uses surrounding the site. The Project Site is not within an area identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2024).
The Proposed Project includes constructing approximately 5,000 linear feet RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows. The Proposed Project does not include activities involving conversion of agricultural or forest lands; therefore, no impact would occur.
4.3 AIR QUALITY
3. AIR QUALITY.
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
❑
❑
❑
�1
(b)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
❑
❑
❑
"
(c)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
❑
❑
❑
...
(d)
Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
❑
❑
❑
/1
The Proposed Project would operate as a passive, unmanned channel, and there are no anticipated significant impacts that would be associated with the Project operations. Therefore, a Construction Air Quality Screening Evaluation for the Proposed Project was prepared by LDN Consulting in February 2025 and is located in Appendix A.
4.3.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project consists of a linear project constructing a concrete pipeline along within a City ROW. The Proposed Project would not modify existing uses to the area and would be consistent with the General Plan. The Proposed Project is shown to generate construction emissions that would be less than significant when compared to the City's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, as the Proposed Project would not create a new land use or generate construction missions exceeding the City's approved air quality thresholds, it would not conflict with the implementation of the General Plan or SCAQMD air quality management plans.
Impacts would be less than significant.
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? Less Than Significant Impact. To determine whether a project would create air quality impacts, the screening thresholds and results of air quality findings utilizing the CaIEEMod model are provided below.
Table 4-1: Screening Threshold for Criteria Pollutant
Pollutant
I
I Total Emissions — Pounds per Day (lb/day)
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10 and PMZ.$)
150 and 55
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)
100
Sulfur Oxide (SO<)
150
Pollutant
Total Emissions — Pounds per Day (lb/day)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
550
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) - Construction
75 Table 4-2: Expected Construction Emissions Summary (lb/day) Season and Year of Construction
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG
(reactive
organic
gases)
NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2 5
Construction Emissions
City Screening Threshold
LTS at 25 meters from Project
Exceeds Screening Threshold
0.94 24.5 25
75 100 500
149 1,541
No No No
0.06 1.78 1.2
150 150 55
10 6
No No No
The results of the modeling found that the Proposed Project would not generate emissions that exceed the thresholds. The cumulative impacts or impacts which would be additive between the Proposed Project and any nearby Project, would not likely increase emissions to a point where SCAQMD thresholds would be exceeded in the general vicinity of the Proposed Project. Additionally, the Proposed Project would operate as an unmanned pipeline and would not create significant operational emissions. Operational activities would be limited to maintenance of the channel.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Residential homes are located along the Project Site and the Proposed Project has the potential to release pollutants into the air. As stated above in impact a), the Proposed Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and is not expected to generate a significant level of air quality emissions.
Additionally, the Proposed Project would use Tier 3 construction equipment or better and diesel particulates would be filtered during the four -month construction period. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to significant air quality emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors, such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in the ambient environment. The intensity refers to an individual's or group's perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating
of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor.
The Proposed Project would have the potential to generate on -site odors during construction, which normally include short term activities such as paving and possibly painting. Impacts associated with these sources are short term and would therefore be considered less than significant. Since operational odors are not typically generated from drainage facilities, a less than significant odor impact would be expected from operations. Given this, the Project would not create a significant odor impact affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(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?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(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?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(e)
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(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?
❑
❑
❑
/1
4.4.1 Environmental Setting
Biological resources include habitats and vegetative communities, migratory corridors, plants, wildlife, fisheries, special status species (regulated by a law, regulation, or policy, such as threatened and endangered species), and waters of the United States. A Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report was prepared for the Proposed Project in May 2026 (Appendix B). The report was completed to determine the potential for impacts to biological resources associated with construction of
the Proposed Project. A reconnaissance -level survey and jurisdictional delineation within the Project site was completed to identify the potential for occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities, and habitats that could support special status wildlife species, as well as the existing conditions of the site.
Results from the survey documented developed and bare ground areas, including ten vegetation communities. No special status plants were observed within the survey areas. No BUOW or active burrows with signs, including cough pellets and whitewash, were observed. Potential jurisdictional water features were observed throughout the survey area. The boundaries of the hydrological feature were mapped and distinguished by the respective Agencies' jurisdiction, based on current Agency guidance documents.
4.4.2 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as 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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Land uses around the Proposed Project consist of developed and undeveloped parcels, as well as open space. E 6th St is lined with commercial development. Pennsylvania Ave features commercial and open spaces, with I-10 and the Union Pacific Railroad on the north end. E 1st St consists of open spaces, commercial properties, and single-family residences.
Ten vegetation communities were documented during the survey of the Project area: Annual Non- native Grassland, Upland Mustard and Star -thistle Field, Disturbed Goodding's Willow Woodland, Disturbed Perennial Buckwheat/Sand-aster Field, Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub, Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Woodland, Disturbed Palmer's Goldenbush Scrub, Giant Reed Marsh, Ruderal, and Ornamental Landscaping. In addition, two other land types were present: Bare Ground and Developed. The majority of the area is developed.
Special Status Plants
After the literature review and the reconnaissance -level survey, it was determined that 64 of the 69 special status plants species are considered absent based on the assessment of the various habitat types observed in the area of the site. Five plant species are considered to have a low potential to be present in the site, including Jaeger's milk -vetch, thread -leaved brodiaea, smooth tarplant, slender - horned spineflower, and Santa Ana River woollystar. Given habitat surrounding the Project site consists of developed areas and non-native grassland, these five plant species are not anticipated to be found within the Project site or the associated buffer. Furthermore, all five of the special status plant species are MSHCP Covered Species, and thus, no additional surveys are required to be conducted for these species as they are considered adequately conserved through reserve assembly and management actions.
Special Status Wildlife
After a literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types within the Project site, including a database search through the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), it was determined that 18 of the 32 special status wildlife species are considered absent based on the lack
of suitable habitat present within the site. 14 wildlife species are considered to have a low potential to be present in the site due to low -quality habitat present within the site.
Least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow -billed cuckoo are not anticipated to occur within the Project site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur to these species and no additional mitigation is recommended. While there is low potential for these species to occur, in order to minimize potential impacts to these species' mitigation, BIO-1 shall be implemented prior to the start of construction activities. If any of the above species are identified, measures to avoid or minimize impacts on these species shall be submitted to resource agencies for approval prior to construction.
After conducting the biological reconnaissance -level survey, it was determined that BUOW has a low potential to occur within the Project site. The Project site occurs in a MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, however, and marginally suitable habitat is present in the Project site. Therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys will be required to comply with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP and as outlined in BIO-2. If BUOW are not found during the focused surveys, a burrowing owl pre -construction survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to ensure that no owls have colonized suitable habitat areas in the days or weeks preceding the ground -disturbing activities to avoid direct take of burrowing owl. If burrowing owls are identified on site, avoidance measures will be developed in compliance with the MSHCP and in coordination with CDFW and RCA, as outlined in BIO-3.
MM BIO-1: Pre -construction Survey for Nesting Birds
Nesting birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). During construction, the Proposed Project would comply with the MBTA, which requires that nesting bird surveys be conducted prior to the start of vegetation clearance activities should they occur during nesting season: February 15 through September 15. In compliance with the MBTA requirements, should vegetation clearance occur during the nesting bird season, a qualified biologist would conduct a nest survey within one week of the start of these activities to ensure no active nests were lost. If an active nest is located, then the nest should be flagged and construction within an appropriate distance of the nest should be postponed until the biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer active. If this is not possible, prior to ground -disturbing activities, a qualified biologist should conduct and submit a migratory nesting bird and raptor survey report. The survey should occur no more than three days prior to initiation of Project activities, and any occupied passerine and/or raptor nests occurring within or adjacent to the Project site should be delineated. Additional follow-up surveys may be required by the resource agencies. To the maximum extent practicable, a minimum buffer zone around occupied nests should be maintained during physical ground -disturbing activities. The buffer zone should be sufficient in size to prevent impacts to the nest. Once nesting has ceased, the buffer may be removed.
If work activities within the buffer cannot be avoided, a biological monitor shall be present during all construction activities within the avoidance buffer.
MM BIO-2: MSHCP Focused BUOW Survey
MSHCP Focused BUOW Surveys will be required to comply with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. All MSHCP Focused BUOW Surveys must be conducted in accordance with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions, including three stages (habitat assessment, burrow survey, and focused surveys) detailed below:
• Habitat Assessment: If a habitat assessment yields suitable habitat for BUOW, a focused burrow survey is required within the suitable habitat and 150 meters around the suitable habitat.
• Burrow Survey: If suitable burrows are found during the focused burrow survey within the suitable habitat, including the 150 -meter buffer, then four breeding season focused burrowing owl surveys will be required.
Focused Surveys: All four focused BUOW survey visits should be conducted during the breeding season (March 1 -August 31), and no less than two weeks apart, when suitable habitat is present.
MM BIO-3: Pre -Construction BUOW Survey
If BUOW are not found during the MSHCP Focused BUOW Surveys, a Pre -Construction BUOW Survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to ensure that no owls have colonized suitable habitat areas in the days or weeks preceding the ground -disturbing activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging, grading, etc.) and to avoid direct take of BUOW, in accordance with MSHCP Species Specific Objective 6.
If BUOW are identified on -site, avoidance measures will be developed in compliance with the MSHCP and in coordination with the CDFW and/or Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). These measures would include the following as well as any others developed in coordination with CDFW and/or RCA:
• A biologist with knowledge of BUOW and its habitat will be retained to function as a biological monitor.
• The biological monitor will develop and implement a contractor education program with regard to the BUOW to be provided to all personnel (including temporary contractors and subcontractors) before beginning work on the Proposed Project. • The biological monitor will be present during vegetation clearing, grading, and construction, to monitor occupied BUOW burrows and any construction -related impacts. • Prior to any ground disturbance, all limits of Project construction will be delineated and marked to be clearly visible to personnel on foot and in heavy equipment. All construction - related activities (e.g., vegetation removal, grading, equipment lay -down and storage, and contractor parking) will occur inside the limits of construction and designated staging areas. ® Construction staging and equipment storage will be located outside any occupied BUOW burrow locations.
• All movement of contractors, subcontractors, or their agents and equipment will be restricted to the limits of construction and staging areas.
• A qualified biologist will conduct any necessary BUOW passive relocation that may be required to avoid Project effects to BUOW.
• If BUOW must be moved away from the proposed work area, passive relocation techniques would be used rather than actual avian trapping. At least one or more weeks would be necessary to accomplish this to allow the birds to acclimate to alternate burrows. • The Proposed Project would provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands acquired for BUOW impacts. This monitoring would include an annual report submittal to the CDFW. The agencies will make the final determination of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.
General Plants and Wildlife
A total of 54 plant species were observed during the survey. Plant species observed or detected during the site survey were characteristic of the existing Survey Area conditions. No special status species were observed during the survey effort. A total of 15 wildlife species were observed during the survey.
Wildlife species observed or detected during the site survey were characteristic of the existing conditions. No special status species were observed during the survey effort.
Based on the Project site conditions, and implementation of the mitigation measures BIO 1-3 identified above, impacts would be less than significant. 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, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is located in a predominantly developed area. The Project site contains an ephemeral drainage that has riparian vegetation; however, the Proposed Project has been designed to leave most of the RCP in place to avoid and minimize impacts by Project activities. The Project site is located within the Potrero Creek Watershed and contains disturbed riparian vegetation.
The Project site contains three ephemeral drainages and one NWI mapped riverine feature that contains mostly disturbed upland vegetation and a few patches of disturbed riparian vegetation; however, the Project has been designed to leave most of the RCP in place to avoid and minimize impacts by Project activities. If these areas are affected by Project activities, they may be subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. This delineation would need to be verified and determined by the regulatory agencies to confirm which permits the applicant may be required to obtain prior to construction, as outlined in MM BIO-4. Table 4-3 provides a summary of acreages of Jurisdictional Waters and the potential impacts to waters that occur within the Project site if they were to be affected.
Table 4-3: Summary of Acreages of Potential Jurisdictional Waters that Occur Within the Impact Areas of the Project Site
USACE
RWQCB
'
MSHCI?'iRIparian
Feature
Area
(acres)
Linear
Feet
Area
(acres)
Linear
Feet
Area
(acres)
Linear
Feet
Area
(acres)
Linear
Feet
Drainage 1
-
-
0.09 808
0.19 808
-
-
Drainage 2
-
-
0.68 2516
1.41 2516
0.26 380
Drainage 3
-
-
0.04 415
0.26 415
-
-
Drainage 4
0.07 133
0.07 133
0.3 133
0.11 100
Total
0.07 I
I 133 1
0.88 3872 ,I
216
3872
ox
1 480
Potential USACE Jurisdiction
The USACE asserts jurisdiction over the San Jacinto River as a TNW. Therefore, USACE will likely take jurisdiction over Drainage 4, which is located in the southern portion of the Project and exits the
Project site. The feature lacks one of the three wetland parameters (i.e., no hydric soils). Therefore, the site does not support a wetland under the jurisdiction of the USACE. For individual impacts, refer to Table 4-3. USACE jurisdictional acreage for the Project, as defined by the OHWMs, totals 0.07 acre.
Up to 0.07 acre of temporary impacts may occur during the removal of the existing RCP, should removal of the RCP or other structural work around the East 1st Street culvert be required. As such, a CWA Section 404 Permit may be required for this Project. The exact work areas and acreage of these temporary impacts are currently undetermined. Potential impacts will be thoroughly analyzed and documented during the permit application process required for this project.
Potential RWQCB Jurisdiction
RWQCB jurisdiction includes all USACE jurisdictional areas, OHWMs, and any other features that influence surface or subsurface water quality within the State. The RWQCB would have jurisdiction over surface waters, which may be identified as ephemeral waters, including those indicated by a change in the average sediment texture, a change in vegetation cover, and/or a break in bank slope.
The Project site contains three ephemeral drainages and one riverine feature. The limits of RWQCB jurisdiction, as defined by the OHWM and indicator features within the Project site, total 0.88 acre.
Therefore, a total of 0.81 acre of permanent impacts and up to 0.07 acre of temporary impacts to waters of the State under the potential jurisdiction of the RWQCB occur in the Project site. As such, a 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the RWQCB for this Project. The exact work areas and acreage of temporary impacts to Drainage 4 are currently undetermined. Potential impacts will be thoroughly analyzed and documented during the permit application process required for this project.
Potential CDFW Jurisdiction
There are 2.16 acres of disturbed upland and disturbed riparian vegetation within the B2B of the Project site that are potentially regulated by CDFW's Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement program. CDFW's jurisdiction extends from the top of bank to top of bank and any adjacent wetlands or riparian canopies. The drainages provide surface waters when water is present and would be considered State waters. Hydrophytic vegetation and indicators of hydrology were observed within the Project site; however, soils within the drainages did not exhibit hydric characteristics. Due to the absence of hydric soils and the disturbed condition of the drainages, these features do not meet the classification of a wetland. Permanent impacts to 1.86 acres within Drainages 1 through 3 will occur due to Project activities by directing stormwater runoff and nuisance water away from the mapped drainages and through the new RCP that empties into the riverine feature (Drainage 4). Up to 0.3 acre of temporary impacts to Drainage 4 may result from Project activities surrounding the existing culvert and should not occur outside of the Project boundary. Therefore, a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) may be required from CDFW for this Project. The exact work areas and acreage of temporary impacts to Drainage 4 are currently undetermined. Potential impacts will be thoroughly analyzed and documented during the permit application process required for this project.
Potential MSHCP Jurisdiction
A total of 0.37 acre of vegetated streambed was mapped within the Project site. Of the 0.37 acre of vegetated streambed mapped, 0.26 acre will be permanently impacted within Drainage 2 and up to
0.11 acre may be temporarily impacted within Drainage 4; however, the exact work areas and acreage of temporary impacts to Drainage 4 are currently undetermined and potential impacts will be
thoroughly analyzed and documented during the permit application process required for this project.
The riparian vegetation mapped is heavily disturbed, lacking the mature forest and canopy required by the riparian species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Therefore, while flows from the drainages may contribute to the support of downstream habitat, the Riparian/Riverine habitat within the site likely does not contribute to the overall biological functions and values of downstream habitat for Covered Species within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Although the species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are not present and are not expected to occur within the Project site, the City, as a Permittee to the MSHCP, has determined that a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is warranted for this Project. The DBESP is being prepared under separate cover (Appendix C).
Based on the conditions summarized in the BTR and Jurisdictional Delineation Report, up to 2.16 acres within the Project site may be subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction if affected by Project activities. The drainages exhibit channelization and eventually connect to Potrero Creek which terminates at the San Jacinto River, a TNW. Implementation of construction minimization measures and best management practices related to erosion protection and sediment control identified in Section 1.4.2, in addition to implementation of MM BIO-4, will result in a less than significant impact to the drainages.
MM BIO-4: Jurisdictional Waters Permitting
Prior to issuance of any grading permit or initiation of ground -disturbing activities, the applicant shall coordinate with appropriate regulatory agencies, including the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW, to verify potential impacts to jurisdictional features and determine required permits. If the Proposed Project would result in impacts to jurisdictional waters, the applicant shall obtain all required permits and/or approvals from the applicable agencies (e.g., USACE CWA Section 404 permit, RWQCB 401 Water Quality Certification, and/or a CDFW LSAA). As part of the permit application process, the applicant shall quantify all permanent and temporary impacts to jurisdictional features and demonstrate impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
As a condition of Project approval, the applicant shall implement all avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures required by these agencies, which may include, but are not limited to:
• Redesign to avoid waters to the maximum extent feasible; ® Establishment of protective setbacks or buffers;
• Implementation of erosion and sediment control measures; • Restoration of temporarily disturbed areas; and,
• Compensatory mitigation through on -site or off -site habitat restoration or credit purchase.
Implementation of the above shall ensure impacts to jurisdictional waters are reduced to a less -than - significant level, consistent with applicable regulatory requirements. c) Would the project 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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 4.4.2 impact b) above, the Project site contains three ephemeral drainages and one riverine feature that contains mostly disturbed upland vegetation and a few patches of disturbed riparian vegetation. While the Project has been designed to leave most of the RCP in place to avoid and minimize impacts by Project activities, these areas may be subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction, verified and determined by the regulatory agencies, if they are affected by Project activities.
To maintain compliance with the agencies, the Proposed Project will submit a CWA Section 404 Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and LSAA, as outlined in MM BIO-4. A DBESP is warranted for this Project and is being prepared under a separate cover. Compliance with the regulatory agencies would result in a less than significant impact.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site is currently urbanized and developed with pockets of open spaces. While not designated as a wildlife corridor, the open spaces areas have potential for certain species to have low potential to occur. As discussed in Section
4.4.2 impact a) above, the Proposed Project will include a pre -construction survey for nesting birds (BIO-1), a MSHCP focused BUOW survey (BIO-2), and pre -construction BUOW survey (BIO-3).
Implementation of BIO 1-3, in accordance with MBTA during construction and MSHCP Species Specific Objective 6, would result in less than significant impacts. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the San Timoteo and Badlands Unit, of the Pass Area Plan, and is not within a Criteria Area Cell of the MSHCP areas. Given the Project site is located outside of the mapped MSHCP Criteria Area, it is only required to comply with "Other Section
6.1.2 Species," which establishes a framework for protecting the biological functions and values of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools, ensuring that these resources continue to support all plant and wildlife species dependent on them.
As noted in Section 4.4.2 impact b) above, existing habitat within the Survey Area does not support any of these species, and therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no additional mitigation is recommended at this time. Although the species listed in Section 6.L2 of the MSHCP are not present and are not expected to occur within the Survey Area, the City, as a Permittee to the MSHCP, has determined that a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is warranted for this Project. The DBESP is being prepared under separate cover. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. As such, impacts would be less than significant. f)
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservancy Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is not within the area of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
MSHCP Criteria Area, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any approved plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
❑
❑
❑
.1
(b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
❑
❑
❑
a
(c)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
❑
❑
❑
.1
A Cultural Resources Survey Report was prepared for the Proposed Project in March 2025. A records search and pedestrian survey was completed for the site. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search identified no sacred sites within the Project site. The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) records search identified four previous cultural resource studies and three previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site; however, no impacts to these resources are expected. Background research yielded no findings of cultural or archaeological significance. Based on the results of the records search review, background research, and field survey, no impacts to cultural resources are expected. The complete study is found in Appendix D.
4.5.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource? Less Than Significant Impact. A review was conducted of the built environment, survey plats, and historical aerial photographs. There were no recorded built environment resources within the Project site but properties were identified within a half -mile. A review of historical aerial photographs covering the Project site revealed historic -period structures within the open parcels that are no longer existing. Between 1940 and 1972, there was increased development within the Project site, including buildings, paved roads, and anthropized landscape.
Based on the conditions of the Project site, and the proposed work, the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts involving historical resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project consists of installation of an RCP pipe along the ROW to convey runoff. According to the results from the NAHC
SLF, CHRIS, and SCIC, in addition to desktop studies and the completed pedestrian survey, there were no findings of cultural or archaeological significance. However, given that ground disturbing activities could have the potential of uncovering undiscovered resources, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to ensure a less than significant impact to these resources.
MM CUL-1 The City shall retain the services of a Qualified Archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards, for the duration of ground -disturbing construction activity. All construction -related ground disturbing activity that includes cutting into native intact soils shall be monitored by a cultural resources specialist proficient in construction monitoring settings. The Qualified Archaeologist or cultural resources specialist working under the direction of the Qualified Archaeologist shall provide training to inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the Project's initial on -site safety meeting and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources.
In the event of an inadvertent discovery of potential archaeological resources (artifacts or features) during ground -disturbing activities, construction activities within a 50 -foot radius of the discovery shall be halted while the Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the City and any participating Tribal representatives, assesses the find. If the resource is determined to be significant or unique through significance evaluation, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site -specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. These might include an archaeological mitigation and monitoring plan, treatment, or data recovery programs. All monitoring or associated plans would be prepared and implemented under the direction of a Qualified Archaeologist. All required close-out reporting would be completed in accordance with the Office of Historic Preservation's Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR). c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project includes ground disturbing activities and therefore has the potential to discover human remains. In the event that human remains are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, then the Proposed Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and California PRC Section 5097.98.
Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to human remains.
HUMAN REMAINS — LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. In the event that human remains are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, then the Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and California PRC) Section 5097.98. If human remains are found during ground -disturbing activities, State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Medical Examiner -Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Medical Examiner -Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American ancestry, the Medical Examiner -Coroner shall notify the NAHC, which shall notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may
recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (NPS 1983).
4.6 ENERGY
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
(b)
Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
4.6.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Proposed Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Proposed Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics.
The Proposed Project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. Energy resources that would potentially be impacted include electricity and petroleum -based fuel supplies and distribution systems. A general definition of each of these energy resources is provided below.
Electricity is a man-made consumptive utility. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources, into energy. The delivery of electricity involves a number of system components, including substations and transformers that lower transmission line power to an appropriate level for on -site distribution and use. The electricity generated is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid. Conveyance of electricity through transmission lines is typically responsive to market demands.
Petroleum -based fuels currently account for a majority of California's transportation energy sources and primarily consist of diesel and gasoline types of fuels. However, the state has been working on developing strategies to reduce petroleum use. Over the last decade, California has implemented several policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency, increase the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce air pollutants and GHGs from the transportation sector, and reduce VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled). Accordingly, petroleum -based fuel consumption in California has declined.
Construction
The Proposed Project would consume energy resources during construction in three general forms:
1. Petroleum -based fuels used to power off -road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site, construction worker travel to and from the Project site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g., hauling demolition material to off -site reuse and disposal facilities).
2. Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during Proposed Project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power.
3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials, such as lumber and glass.
Project construction activities would require energy consumption that would not result in an adverse impact on available energy supplies and infrastructure. Energy consumed during construction would be obtained from the existing electrical and gas lines in the vicinity of the Proposed Project and would be temporary. Project construction would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts are less than significant.
Operations
The ongoing operation of the Proposed Project would be an unmanned pipeline with limited maintenance. Any use of energy resources during maintenance would be minimal. Therefore, the operational use of energy resources during operations would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would follow applicable energy standards and regulations during the construction phases. The operations of the Proposed Project would be mostly unmanned with some maintenance involved. The construction and use of the Proposed Project is consistent with the land uses and would not involve or interfere with any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, such as the City's Energy Action Plan. The Proposed Project would not introduce needs that require high demand of new electricity or utility connections that would require additional renewable energy facilities.
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
❑
❑
❑
►/
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
....
❑
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
❑
❑
❑
►,
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
//
(b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
❑
❑
❑
1 (c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
❑
❑
❑
❑
(d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? El ❑
❑
(e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
❑
❑
❑
CO
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geological
feature?
❑
❑
❑
�1
4.7.1 Impact Analysis
a) i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California and has the potential to be subjected to ground shaking hazards associated with earthquake events on active faults throughout the region. The Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2023). The Proposed Project would not result in risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 -inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project does not involve the construction of structures that could be affected by the rupture of a fault; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
ii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section VI(a)(i) above, the Proposed Project is located in the seismically active region of Southern California and has the potential to be subjected to ground shaking hazards associated with earthquake events on active faults throughout the region. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 -inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2023). Implementation of the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. The Proposed Project does not include construction of new buildings or structures; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iii) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction can occur when soils lose cohesion and their ability to support structures when subjected to strong ground motion. The Proposed Project site is not located in an area identified as a generalized liquefaction susceptibility zone on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (DOC 2024). The Proposed Project does not include construction of new buildings or structures. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects to people in structures that could be affected by liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
No Impact. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 - inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project is not located within an area identified as a Landslide Hazard Zone on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (DOC 2024). The Proposed Project does not include construction of new buildings or structures that could result in a risk of loss, injury, or death to its inhabitants. The Proposed Project would not result in the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides, and no impact would occur.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 -inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. According to the General Plan, the Project site is located in an area containing Ramona soil types which are found in areas used for production of grain, hay, pasture, citrus, and other agricultural uses. Uncultivated areas with this soil type have a cover of annual grasses, forbs, chamise, or chaparral (City 2021a).
Erosion occurs when the soil is exposed to wind or water which would create a depletion of the topsoil. During construction, the soil would be disturbed and exposed which could result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. The Proposed Project site is located within the existing ROW and is not used for
agricultural/cultivation purposes and therefore, there would be no impact relating to the use of the soil for agricultural purposes. In relation to erosion, the Proposed Project would implement wind, dust, and stormwater management BMPs to address potential erosion at the Project site during ground disturbing activities. Additionally, the Proposed Project would comply with the California Building Code Chapter 18 and 33 that deals with foundation, cut and fill, drainage and erosion, and Land Use and Design policies under the General Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact, and there would not be long term impacts to erosion and loss of topsoil. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat with no dramatic sloping. The Proposed Project would remove compressible soils and replace them with engineered fill. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project is not in an area prone to liquefaction (DOC 2024). Therefore, impacts to on- or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse are expected to be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils possess clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking when dry or swelling when wet. These types of soil have the potential to crack building foundations and, in some cases, structurally distress the buildings themselves. Minor to severe damage to overlying structures is possible. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City requires grading plans to be submitted and address geotechnical recommendations. Additionally, all development within the City's planning area is required to be compliant with the California Building Code in Title 24 as it relates to construction on expansive soils. However, given that the Proposed Project does not involve building structures and facilities, there would be a less than significant impact on risks to life or property.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 - inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project does include installation of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impact would occur. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A Paleontological Review was prepared for the Proposed Project by Chambers Group on March 2025 (Appendix F). A paleontological localities search (records search) was conducted on January 17, 2025; while no localities were identified within one mile of the Project site, localities have been previously identified within alluvial unit mapped within the proposed Project site. Riverside County has designated much of the area surrounding the Project site as of unknown sensitivity for paleontological resources, under which assessment the
County recommends that a more in-depth study, including a pedestrian survey. A pedestrian survey of the Project site was conducted on February 20, 2025; no evidence of paleontological resources was observed on the visible ground surface.
While no evidence of resources was found during the survey, there is potential for resources to be uncovered given that there have been documented resources found outside the Project site. Due to the overall sensitivity of the area, mitigation measures MM PAL -1 are included to reduce potential impacts associated with ground disturbances. Impacts would then be less than significant.
MM PAL -1 The City shall be required to obtain the services of a Qualified Paleontologist to remain on -call for the duration of the ground -disturbing construction activity. Upon approval or request by the City, a paleontological mitigation plan (PMP) outlining procedures for paleontological monitoring and inadvertent discovery protocols shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval. The development and implementation of the PMP shall include, but not be limited to, additional research and further assessment of paleontological sensitivity in the Project site, consultations with the City's engineering geologist, as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. The PMP shall also include developing a multilevel ranking system, or Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC), as a tool to demonstrate the potential yield of fossils within a given stratigraphic unit. The PMP shall outline the monitoring and salvage protocols to address inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources encountered during Project -related ground -disturbing activities. As well as the appropriate recording, collection, processing, curation, and reporting protocols to appropriately address any monitoring conducted or resources discovered.
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
❑
❑
❑
/L
(b)
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
❑
❑
❑
a
A Construction Air Quality and GHG Screening Evaluation was prepared for the Proposed Project by Ldn Consulting in February 2025 and is located in Appendix A. The City uses the County of Riverside screening thresholds to determine whether a project would create potential impacts. GHG impacts related to construction were calculated using CaIEEMod 2022.1.
4.8.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located within Riverside County and is subject to its GHG screening thresholds. The GHG emissions were calculated using CaIEEMOD version 2022.1 and the inputs are located in Attachment A in Appendix A. The Proposed Project would not construct a facility or building, and significant operational trips are not expected. The GHG emissions were calculated and do not exceed the County's threshold. The Proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 203 metric ton (MT) of CO2e (carbon monoxide equivalent) during construction in 2025 and 60.6 in 2026. These emissions would not exceed the County's screening threshold of 3,000 MT of (carbon dioxide equivalent) CO2e. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions that would significantly impact the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The Proposed Project is expected to produce no more than a total of 263.6 MT of CO2e per year, contributing minimally to the cumulative environmental impact. This amount is considered less than significant in the context of the overall GHG inventory.
Therefore, it aligns with existing policies and regulations aimed at reducing emissions and does not require further analysis or mitigation. Impacts therefore would be less than significant.
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
❑
❑
❑
O
(d)
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(e)
For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project
area?
❑
❑
❑
,1
(f)
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(g)
Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
❑
❑
❑
/1
4.9.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. The potential impacts from the route transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are outlined below for both the construction and operation phases.
Construction
Short-term construction activities for the Proposed Project would involve the use of hazardous materials typical for construction, including fuel for construction equipment such as gasoline, diesel fuels, and solvents. No other hazardous materials would be transported to or from the Project site or be utilized in the construction process. The transport, use, and disposal of construction -related hazardous materials would occur in conformance with all applicable regulations governing such activities. By following proper handling in accordance to the manufacturer's guidelines on equipment and materials, health and safety practices, hazards communication, and emergency response procedures as required under the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and contractor guidelines, any impact that would create a significant hazard to the public, or the environment through the routine transport or use of hazardous materials at the Project site, would be less than significant.
Operation
The Proposed Project will function as an unmanned RCP that will be maintained by City staff. There will be no routine storage or use of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project site would operate as an RCP and would not currently involve the routine use or storage of hazardous materials. Construction and
operational activities would comply with all applicable regulations governing such activities. During operations, use of vehicles and maintenance equipment will be handled according to manufacturer standards and maintenance procedures by RCFC. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact in regard to creating a significant hazard to the public. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. Palm Innovation Academy is located within one -quarter mile of the Proposed Project site. Construction and operational activities that would involve the use of hazardous materials (such as fuel, gasoline) would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable local and state regulations. The RCP would be unmanned, and operations would involve typical maintenance of the area, such as debris and vegetation removal. These activities would not result in potentially emitting hazardous emissions or hazardous material to the nearby schools because all work would remain within the RCP. Any potential spills would be addressed according to RCFC maintenance guidelines. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact in regard to emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous materials within one -quarter mile of an existing school.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The following databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 were checked for known hazardous materials contamination at the Project site:
• GeoTracker (SWRCB): list of leaking underground storage tank sites • EnviroStor (California DTSC): list of hazardous waste and substances sites The Proposed Project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65862.5 (DTSC 2023; SWRCB 2024). The Proposed Project would operate as an unmanned RCP and not be used as a site for residential or commercial use that could expose persons to recognized environmental conditions (RECs). Use of potentially hazardous materials would be limited during construction. Once operational, no hazardous materials will be routinely transported to and from the site or used for the Proposed Project outside of maintenance equipment. No significant hazard would be created as a result of the Proposed Project, and impacts would be less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Proposed Project is located more than 6 miles from the Banning Municipal Airport.
The Project site is more than 2 miles from a public airport, airport land use plan, or a private airstrip, therefore there would be no impact associated with an airport. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The Proposed Project would be designed to provide unobstructed access and would comply with the County of Riverside Emergency Operations Plan (County 2019). No roads would be permanently closed because of the construction or operation of the Proposed Project, and no structures would be developed that could impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur. g)
Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The Project site is located in a residential area of the City and does not include wildlands or high fire hazard terrain or vegetation. An open space exists adjacent to the Project site; however, the open space is not in a wildland or fire hazard area. The Proposed Project would not expose persons or structures to the risk of wildland fires during construction or operation. The Proposed Project is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Operations involve an unmanned RCP. The RCP would be maintained by RCFC including clearing brush and vegetation and will continue to do so once the Proposed Project is operational. In addition, no roads would be permanently closed because of the construction or operation of the Proposed Project, and no structures would be developed that could impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
❑
❑
❑
r
(b)
Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site;
❑
❑
❑
12 ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flood on- or off -site;
❑
❑
❑
/1
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
❑
❑
❑
/1
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
❑
❑
/1
❑
(d)
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
❑
❑
❑
,1
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
No
10. Would the project:
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Impact
Incorporated
(e)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
❑
❑
❑
0. 4.10.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located within the Potrero Creek Watershed of the Upper Santa Ana Valley groundwater basin. The Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) runs through the survey area and is designated as Zone AO (areas that have a 1 percent annual chance of flooding or 100 -year flood) and Zone X (areas having a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding or 500 -year flood).
The Proposed Project would install an unmanned RCP. Potential short-term surface water quality impacts related to Project construction activities include runoff of loose soils and/or construction wastes and fuels that could potentially percolate into the ground or runoff onto the street. Erosion and sediment control BMPs would be implemented as part of the construction procedures to manage construction runoff, including but not limited to, silt fences and straw wattles, conducting general housekeeping and material management, and spill prevention procedures. During operations, the area would be unmanned. Therefore, implementation of construction and maintenance BMPs identified in Section 1.4.2 would result in less than significant impacts with regard to surface and groundwater quality.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. Although a nominal amount of water may be used during construction, these activities would be minimal and temporary in nature and would not substantially impact groundwater supplies. Additionally, the Project site is not currently utilized as a groundwater recharge area. The Proposed Project would not result in any water demand at Project completion and therefore would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. A less than significant impact would occur.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project would not result in large areas of exposed soil that would be subject to runoff. Rather, it would include
improvements to the existing drainage by safely conveying storm runoff. Construction of the Proposed Project would comply to applicable federal, State, and regional regulations and impacting drainage courses as discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, with regard to Section 401, 404, and LSAA permits. Therefore, compliance with the regulations, construction BMPs, and MM BIO-4 would result in a less than significant impact. ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site;
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project consists of installing an unmanned RCP to convey storm runoff. The Proposed Project does not involve installation of structures or parking lots that would result in a significant increase of impervious surfaces that would increase runoff.
Impacts therefore would be less than significant.
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff; or Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would facilitate storm flows efficiently by installing an unmanned RCP. The Proposed Project does not include new construction that would require an increase in capacity of existing drainage systems such as residential, commercial, and industrial development. During construction, the Proposed Project may result in polluted runoff; however, as part of general construction practices, spill control and material management procedures would be implemented to control any potential runoff during construction. Because the Proposed Project would not result in a significant contribution to polluted runoff, and would not affect capacities of existing drainage systems, impacts would be less than significant. iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would install an RCP to facilitate storm flows which would provide flood protection to the area and adjacent properties. The SFHA runs through the northern area of the alignment and is designated as Zone AO (areas that have a 1 percent annual chance of flooding or 100 -year flood) and Zone X (areas having a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding or 500 -year flood). However, the Proposed Project would be installed below ground and does not propose construction of any standing structures that could significantly impact flood flows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. The Proposed Project is located inland and away from any open water source or flood control dam that could result in a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Proposed Project is approximately 6 miles northeast of Mystic Lake and 50 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The Proposed Project would not cause or expose people and structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not obstruct with the implementation of water quality control plan or groundwater management plan. The Proposed Project intends to improve the storm flows by installing an unmanned RCP which would discharge out of an existing earthen channel. The Project site is not a designated groundwater recharge area and the proposed activities would not affect any groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
11. LAND USE/PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(b)
Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
❑
❑
❑
4.11.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 - inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community as there are no proposed construction that would divide an established community. No impact would occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 - inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project's designated land use and zoning designations are described as follows:
General Plan Land Use Designations
• E 6th St — Downtown Mixed Use
• Pennsylvania Ave — Industrial, General Commercial with Transit Oriented District (TOD) Overlay • E 1st St — General Commercial with TOD Overlay, Single Family Residential, Open Space Zoning Designations
• E 6th St - Sixth Street Mixed Use, Sixth Street Mixed Use — Residential • Pennsylvania Ave — Sixth Street Mixed Use, Sixth Street Mixed Use — Residential, Manufacturing, Community Commercial with TOD Overlay
• E 15t St — Community Commercial with TOD Overlay, Recreation/Conservation, Residential Single Family
The construction of the RCP would not conflict with the zoning because the Proposed Project involves updates to public and utility infrastructure. The Proposed Project would not alter the general function of the existing site and would be compliant with the land use plan, policies, and regulations. The proposed uses would be consistent with the current land use and zoning designations for the Project site and no impact would occur.
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(b)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
❑
❑
❑
/1
4.12.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The General Plan states that there have been no significant amounts of mineral deposits in the City and there are no delineated sites or locations of mineral resources within the City or sphere boundaries (City 2021b). Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resource that would be of value to the region. Thus, no impact would occur.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As noted above, the General Plan states that there have been no significant amounts of mineral deposits in the City and there are no delineated sites or locations of mineral resources within the City or sphere boundaries (City 2021b). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource, and no impact would occur.
4.13 NOISE
Less than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Significant
With
Significant
No
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
(a)
Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(b)
Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
❑
❑
❑
�1
(c)
For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
❑
❑
❑
A Construction Noise Evaluation was prepared for the Proposed Project by Ldn Consulting in February 2025 and is located in Appendix E. The noise evaluation examined the construction noise conditions for the Proposed Project. Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the Federal Transit Association (FTA) and Federal Highway Association (FHWA). Construction noise is assessed in A -weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent sound level (Leq); this unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period. Construction noise modeling was conducted using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
4.13.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB). The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. Therefore, the "A -weighted" noise scale, which weights the frequencies to which humans are sensitive, is used for measurements. Noise levels using A -weighted measurements are written dB(A) or dBA. Noise standards for land use compatibility are stated in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day -Night Average Noise Level (DNL). CNEL is a 24 -hour average weighted average measure of community noise. CNEL is obtained by adding five decibels to sound levels in the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) and by adding ten decibels to sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM).
This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. DNL is very similar to 24 -hour average measure that weights only the nighttime hours. The equivalent continuous noise level, Leq, is a level of steady state sound that in a stated time period, and a stated location, has the same A -weighted sound energy as the time -varying sound.
Construction Noise
Construction noise is regulated within Section 9.02.110(F) of the City Municipal Code. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact if:
• Project construction occurs outside the hours of 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM during the months of June through September; or,
• Project construction occurs outside the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM during the months of October through May; or,
• Project construction noise exceeds 55 dBA at the interior of an occupied residence or school for any 15 -minute period.
The FTA threshold for 80 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for residential uses and for 90 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for non- residential uses is used as a conservative standard for evaluating construction noise impacts. The Construction Noise Evaluation determined that, at a distance as close as 50 feet, the anticipated worst -case noise level would be below the FTA's 80 dBA Leq 8 -hour standard at the nearest residential property lines. Additionally, the noise analysis construction hours would occur within the City's specified hours and the Proposed Project would comply with the City's noise standards at the FTA's 80 dbA Leq 8 -hour standard. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal in inches per second. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal in vibration decibels (VdB), ref one micro -inch per second. The Federal Railroad Administration uses the abbreviation "VdB" for vibration decibels to reduce the potential for confusion with sound decibel.
The City has not established thresholds of significance concerning groundborne vibration. In the absence of City -established thresholds, groundborne vibration impacts are based on guidance from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2020). Accordingly, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact if:
• Groundborne vibration levels generated by the Proposed Project have the potential to cause architectural damage at nearby buildings by exceeding the following PPV:
o 0.08 in/sec at extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments o 0.10 in/sec at fragile buildings
o 0.25 in/sec at historic and some old buildings
o 0.30 in/sec at older residential structures
o 0.50 in/sec at new residential structures and modern industrial/commercial buildings. • Groundborne vibration levels generated by the Proposed Project have the potential to cause severe annoyance to people living or working in nearby buildings by exceeding a PPV of 0.4 in/sec.
The Proposed Project involves the use of typical construction equipment such as excavators, dump trucks, backhoes, laser -graders, compactors, and concrete trucks. These types of equipment are common in construction projects and are not typically associated with excessive groundborne vibration. All construction equipment would be properly fitted with mufflers and staging and maintenance would be conducted away from residences (Appendix E). Furthermore, the Proposed Project would operate as an unmanned drainage channel and the generation of significant groundborne vibration or noise is not expected. Therefore, the Proposed Project would comply with
noise standards and is not expected to generate vibration or noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public us airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within two miles of a public airport. Therefore, it would not expose people residing or working at the Project Site to excessive noise levels and no impact would occur.
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(b)
Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
❑
❑
❑
/�
4.14.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The Proposed Project does not involve construction that would induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The Proposed Project would construct an unmanned RCP in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project would be maintained by RCFC staff and would not result in population growth. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not induce population growth directly or indirectly and no impact would occur.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project does not involve construction that would induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. Residential uses exist in the Proposed Project site; however, the Proposed Project would not result in the displacement of existing housing, and no people would be displaced. The Proposed Project focuses on constructing an RCP. Therefore, no impact on population and housing would occur.
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
15. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire Protection?
❑
❑
❑
/1
ii) Police Protection?
❑
❑
❑
/1
iii) Schools?
❑
❑
❑
/1
iv) Parks?
❑
❑
❑
/1
v) Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
/1
4.15.1 Impact Analysis
a) i) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? No Impact. Fire protection services for the Project site would be provided by CalFire and Riverside County Fire Department. The fire station nearest to the Project Site is City of Beaumont Fire Station 1, located approximately 0.15 miles to the start of the Project site on E 6th St, and approximately 1 mile from the end of the Project site on E 15t St. The Proposed Project would operate as an unmanned RCP and would not result in an increase in the demand for fire services resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an impact regarding fire protection services.
ii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? No Impact. The police station nearest to the Project Site is City of Beaumont Police Station, located approximately 0.15 miles to the start of the Project site on E 6th St, and approximately 1 mile from the end of the Project site on E 1st St. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 -inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of physically altered governmental facilities, nor would it require the need for new facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
iii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? No Impact. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 - inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project will not result in the need for altered or new governmental facilities. Construction and operation of the RCP would not affect the performance and operation of nearby schools. No Impact would occur.
iv) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities to maintain acceptable opportunities for parks. The closest to the Project site is Stewart Park, located approximately 0.4 mile north. The Proposed Project would not induce population growth and would not create new residents that would result in the need for new or expanded parks. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact associated with parks.
v) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? No Impact. The Proposed Project is not expected to impact any other public facilities, such as hospitals or libraries. The Proposed Project would not increase the capacity of the existing residential community or generate any new permanent residents that would require upgrades to existing public service infrastructure. Construction of the Proposed Project would be temporary, and maintenance of the Project site would be done by existing staff. No impact would occur.
4.16 RECREATION
16. RECREATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
❑
❑
❑
�1
4.16.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities typically results from a substantial increase in population growth or a lack of recreational facilities in an area. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 -inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in population growth that would increase the use of existing recreational facilities as it does not propose new residential facilities, nor does it involve the construction or removal of recreational facilities.
The Proposed Project would create temporary and permanent employment with construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The anticipated number of temporary and permanent employees would not result in increased use of existing neighborhoods due to the temporary presence of the construction workers. Additionally, employees of the Proposed Project are expected to be filled by existing agency employees. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur associated with parks or recreational facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 -inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not create an adverse physical effect on the environment through construction or expansion of recreational facilities, resulting in no impact.
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
17,
TRANSPORTATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(b)
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(c)
Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
❑
❑
❑
�1
(d)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
r
❑
4.17.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would generate minor increases in traffic associated with the short-term construction activities. The temporary and limited increase in construction traffic would not conflict with any applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for circulation systems.
The Proposed Project would include traffic control measures such as signs, barriers, and flaggers to ensure safety and maintain vehicle and pedestrian access along the right-of-way. The affected right- of-way would be restored after installation of the RCP. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would operate as an unmanned RCP and would not result in an increase in transportation to and from the Project site that would affect existing circulation or conflict with existing plans or ordinances.
Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with an applicable plan, ordnance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
b) Would the project Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. The metric used to evaluate the transportation impact of land use and transportation projects under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) is known as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount of distance of automobile travel attributable to a project or region. California Senate Bill (SB) 743 directs the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts to provide alternatives to LOS that "promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses." In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project or region.
Projects involving residential, office, and retail tend to have the greatest influence on VMT. The Proposed Project involves the construction of an unmanned RCP. The Proposed Project would require vehicle trips during construction and minimal transit during operations. The Proposed Project would operate as an unmanned RCP and would only require maintenance by City staff. Because the Proposed Project is not a residential, office or retail project, and would be unmanned with minimal trips required for maintenance, impacts would be less than significant and would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b).
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? No Impact. The Proposed Project will not substantially increase hazards due to design features. The Proposed Project would include traffic control measures such as signs, barriers, and flaggers to ensure safety and maintain vehicle and pedestrian access along the right-of-way. The affected right-of-way would be restored after installation of the RCP. The Proposed Project would limit the proposed construction within the channel limits and not include new design features that would be incompatible to the area. The RCP would not interfere with the design of the area and would not include major adjustments to roadways. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not impede emergency access during temporary construction activities because work equipment and staging would not be adjacent to a roadway. The Proposed Project would include traffic control measures such as signs, barriers, and flaggers to ensure safety and maintain vehicle and pedestrian access along the right-of-way. The affected right-of-way would be restored after installation of the RCP. The operation of the Proposed Project would not interfere with emergency access to and from the site, nor the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
❑
❑
❑
�1
(b)
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
❑
❑
❑
/1
4.18.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts to historical resources as there were none identified within the Project areas. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires public agencies to consult with tribes that may have a traditional affiliation to a project area to gather information on a site's sensitivity and identify if any mitigation measures would be required to preserve discovered or undiscovered tribal cultural resources.
On behalf of the City, Chambers Group sent AB 52 notification letters via email to the 35 tribal representatives on the Native American contact list. Responses were received from the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. The City received responses to consult from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Based on the provided information of the Proposed Project, the following mitigation measures have been requested to be included.
TCR-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement with a participating tribal entity for the Project. The Tribal Monitor shall be on - site during all ground -disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind). The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground -disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.
TCR-2: Prior to any ground -disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post replacement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), and prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall retain a Qualified Archaeologist who meets the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior Standards (SOI). The Archaeologist shall be present during all ground disturbing activities to identify any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The Archaeologist will conduct a Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training, in conjunction with the Tribe[s] Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and/or designated Tribal Representative. The training session will focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground -disturbing activities as well as the procedures to be followed in such an event.
TCR-3: Prior to any ground -disturbing activities the project Archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) to address the details, timing, and responsibilities of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site. This Plan shall be written in consultation with the consulting Tribe[s] and shall include the following: approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties' responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the project schedule.
TCR-4: The retained Qualified archeologist and Consulting Tribe[s] representative shall attend the pre - grade meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan.
TCR-5: During all ground -disturbing activities the Qualified Archaeologist and the Tribal Monitor shall be onsite full-time. The frequency of inspections shall depend on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and any discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074. Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring will be discontinued when the depth of grading and the soil conditions no longer retain the potential to contain cultural deposits. The Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal Monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.
TCR-6: In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are unearthed during construction, the Qualified Archaeologist and the Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarily halt ground -disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non- significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored grading can proceed.
If a potentially significant cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within a 60 -foot perimeter of the discovery and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the Qualified Archaeologist and Tribal Monitor[s]. The Archaeologist shall notify the City and consulting Tribe[s] of said discovery. The Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead Agency, the consulting Tribe[s], and the Tribal Monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. A recommendation for the treatment and disposition of the Tribal Cultural Resource shall be made by the Qualified Archaeologist in consultation with the Tribe[s] and the Tribal Monitor[s] and be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval. Below are the possible treatments and dispositions of significant cultural resources in order of CEQA preference:
A. Full avoidance.
B. If avoidance is not feasible, Preservation in place.
C. If Preservation in place is not feasible, all items shall be reburied in an area away from any future impacts and reside in a permanent conservation easement or Deed Restriction.
D. If all other options are proven to be infeasible, data recovery through excavation and then curation in a Curation Facility that meets the Federal Curation Standards (CFR 79.1) TCR-7: In order to protect Native American human remains and/or cremations, no photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the consulting Tribe[s].
A. Should human remains and/or cremations be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground -disturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop within a 100 -foot perimeter of the discovery. The area shall be protected; project personnel/observers will be restricted. The County Coroner is to be contacted within 24 hours of discovery. The County Coroner has 48 hours to make his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code §7050.5. and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98.
B. In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of HSC §7050.5.
C. The Native American Heritage Commission shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours, upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery and make his/her recommendation for final treatment and disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to PRC §5097.98
D. The MLD may wish to rebury the human remains and/or cremation and sacred items in their place of discovery with no further disturbance where they will reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburial will not be disclosed by any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains and/or cremations will be determined by the Tribe's MLD, the landowner, and the City Planning Department.
TCR-8: The final report[s] created as a part of the project (AMTP, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be submitted to the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe[s] for review and comment. After approval of all parties, the final reports are to be submitted to the Eastern Information Center, and the Consulting Tribe[s].
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
��
UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
❑
❑
❑
"
(b)
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
❑
❑
❑
"
(c)
Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
❑
❑
❑
/�
(d)
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
❑
❑
❑
�'
(e)
Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid wastes?
❑
❑
❑
/1
4.19.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or expansion of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 -inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project does not propose any new land uses that would result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, electricity, telecommunications, or natural gas facilities. The construction of the Proposed Project would not result in the need for new utility structures. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and the Proposed Project would not cause significant environmental effects. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would temporarily require the use of water for dust control; however, this water use would be temporary and cease at the end of construction. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 -inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows and reconstruction of the headwall. The Proposed Project would not introduce new land uses or new construction that would significantly increase water demand to the area. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
No Impact. Utilities and service systems include potable water and wastewater treatment. The quantity of water consumed and wastewater generated by a project is determined by several factors including the size, type, and characteristics of the project. The need for construction of new or replacement water and wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., reservoirs, storage tanks, water mains, filtration plants, pumps, wells, and other connections or distribution facilities) would depend on the existing capacity and anticipated demand for the Project area. The Proposed Project would not construct any uses capable of producing wastewater. The operation of the site would be a passive, unmanned RCP. No impacts would occur in this regard.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project may require the disposal of construction debris during the grading/excavation process including soil, asphalt, concrete, and other construction related materials. The generation of these materials would be short-term in nature and would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The Proposed Project would operate as an unmanned RCP and would not continually generate solid waste.
Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact in regard to generation of significant solid waste.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would comply with all federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act, Mandatory Commercial Recycling Law, and County of Riverside requirements for solid waste generated during the construction process. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
4.20 WILDFIRE
20. WILDFIRE.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
0 (b)
Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
(c)
Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines, or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the
environment?
(d)
Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
4.20.1 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located outside of any Fire Hazard Severity Zones (CalFire 2024). The Proposed Project will not impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The Proposed Project does not include any modifications of main roads that could be designated as emergency evacuation routes, nor does the Proposed Project include construction of facilities that would interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan. While there are pockets of open spaces along Pennsylvania Ave, it is not a wildland area, nor does it contain significant amounts of vegetation that could create an adverse impact regarding wildlands. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CalFire 2024). The Project site is located in a relatively flat, urbanized location with little vegetation and therefore will not exacerbate wildfire risks. Due to the absence of significant sloping features or notable prevailing winds, and the fact that the area is highly developed, the Proposed Project would
not exacerbate wildfire risks and expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentration; impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include installation or maintenance of associated infrastructures that would exacerbate a fire risk. In addition, the Proposed Project is not located within a VHFHSZ. No impact would occur.
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post fire slope instability or drainage changes? Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 -inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St along with the headwall in the City to handle anticipated future flows. The Proposed Project site is absent of significant sloping features. The Project site is relatively flat and does not include activities that would significantly change the slope of the Project site, nor would it construct facilities that would expose people or structures to significant fire risks. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a)
Does the project have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
❑
❑
❑
/1
(b)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects?)
❑
❑
❑
/1
(c)
Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
❑
❑
❑
/1
4.21.1 Impact Analysis
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would have low potential for sensitive species to occur. To minimize potential impacts to these species' mitigation BIO-1 shall be implemented prior to the start of construction activities. If any of the species discussed Section 4.4 Biological Resources (and Appendix B) are identified, measures to avoid or minimize impacts on these species shall be submitted to resource agencies for approval prior to construction.
The BUOW has a low potential to occur within the Project site. In addition, the site occurs in a MSHCP designated BUOW area; therefore, a MSHCP focused BUOW focused survey is required in accordance with the MSHCP as outlined in BIO-2. If BUOW are not found during the MSHCP Focused BUOW Surveys, a Pre -Construction BUOW Survey shall be conducted as outlined in BIO-3.
The Proposed Project site is subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. As discussed in Section
4.4, and outlined in the Jurisdictional Delineation Report, the Proposed Project will require compliance with USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW permitting requirements through the submittal of Section 404, 401, and LSAA applications, as outlined in BIO-4. Compliance with the MBTA and regulatory agencies would result in a less than significant impact.
As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to cultural, historic, or archaeological resources. The Proposed Project consists of installation of an RCP pipe along the ROW to convey runoff. According to the results from the NAHC SLF, CHRIS, and SCIC, in addition to desktop studies and the completed pedestrian survey, there were no findings of cultural or archaeological significance. However, given that ground disturbing activities could have the potential of uncovering undiscovered resources, CUL-1 shall be implemented to ensure a less than significant impact to these resources.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would occur concurrently with the Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project, which is a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposed traffic and safety improvement project in the Project vicinity (City 2026).
Pennsylvania Ave Grade Separation Project
The Proposed Project would overlap in timing and location with the Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project (Grade Separation Project), located at the existing Pennsylvania Avenue intersection with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) at -grade crossing. The Grade Separation Project includes construction of an underpass and associated roadway improvements along Pennsylvania
Avenue, extending from south of 3rd Street to just north of the Interstate 10 (I-10) off -ramp on the north.
The purpose of the Grade Separation Project is to replace an existing at -grade rail crossing with a grade -separated underpass, thereby improving safety and maintaining a four -lane roadway while adding sidewalks for pedestrian access. The Grade Separation Project also includes installation of new traffic signals at the I-10 ramp intersections and widening of the eastbound on -ramp to improve safety and provide a vehicle pullout area. The Grade Separation qualified for a statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.13 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15282(g) which exempts projects related to grade separation. A Notice of Exemption (NOE) was filed on November 21, 2025.
Cumulative Impact Assessment
Construction of the Grade Separation Project is anticipated to be underway in April 2027, overlapping with construction of the Proposed Project in both time and geographic extent. Specifically, the Grade Separation Project overlaps with Segment 2 of the Proposed Project along Pennsylvania Avenue between E 6th Street and E 1st Street. It is important to note that the City will coordinate with Riverside County Transportation Commission and Caltrans on construction schedule and timing for the Proposed Project and the Grade Separation Project, as well as the funding timeline for the Grade Separation Project.
Cumulative impacts could occur where overlapping construction activities contribute to combined effects related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and noise.
As discussed in Section 4.3 (Air Quality) and Section 4.8 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and documented in the Air Quality Report (Appendix A), the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions due to its small scale and temporary construction duration and with the operation of the Project which would consist of an unmanned drainage. Construction of the Grade Separation project would be temporary, and operations would not generate emissions that would exceed existing thresholds. In fact, the Grade Separation Project would enhance traffic flow, reducing emissions from vehicle idling and contributing to improved air quality.
Impacts to biological resources were evaluated in Section 4.4, supported by the Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report prepared for the Proposed Project in May 2026 (Appendix B).
With implementation of construction minimization measures, best management practices, and MM BIO-4, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to the drainages. Based on the "Delineation of Waters of the State" report prepared for the Grade Separation Project in November 2024, potential impacts to jurisdictional waters would require coordination with appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., CDFW and RWQCB) and compliance with agency recommendations.
In regards to transportation, as discussed in Section 4.17, the Proposed Project would result in a temporary and limited increase in construction -related traffic and minimal operational trips, resulting in a less than significant impact related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and trip generation.
Implementation of the Grade Separation Project would enhance transportation safety by eliminating
the risk of collisions between trains, vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. It would also improve traffic flow, reducing vehicle idling time and enabling faster emergency response times.
Noise impacts were evaluated in the Construction Noise Evaluation (Appendix E), which determined that construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would comply with the City's noise standards and the Federal Transit Administration's 80 dBA Leq (8 -hour) threshold, resulting in a less than significant impact. Similarly, the Noise Report prepared for the Grade Separation Project confirms that no adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated because construction would be conducted in accordance with the Caltrans' Standard Specifications 14-8.02, "Noise Control." Improved traffic flow will result in less vehicle idling time, reducing noise associated with passing trains. Furthermore, the proposed grade separation project was not found to trigger significant increases to the existing noise levels. Construction of both the Proposed Project and Grade Separation project would not result in noise levels that would be considered a significant impact, and it would not result in different noise levels. It would be infeasible for construction equipment for both projects to occur at the same time and same space because the schedules would differ, and each project consists of different tasks. Additionally, the noise results for each project show a less than significant impact, and when combined, is not expected to result in a cumulative increase.
Because the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, transportation, and noise, its incremental contribution to cumulative impacts when considered in combination with the Grade Separation Project is not cumulatively considerable. The Proposed Project and Grade Separation projects are subject to separate regulatory processes (e.g., permitting) that require City, Caltrans and Riverside County Transportation Commission coordination, in addition to implementation of any project - specific mitigation or avoidance measures. Accordingly, cumulative impacts associated with these resource areas would be less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. Environmental effects that may cause substantial adverse effects on humans typically result from impacts to air quality and GHGs; noise; hazardous materials; ground shaking; hazardous design features with respect to transportation and roadway designs; and wildfire.
The analysis of this document indicates that impacts would be less than significant to the environmental areas mentioned above and, therefore, would not cause substantial adverse impacts to human beings. Impacts would be less than significant.
SECTION 5.0 - REFERENCES
The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this document.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) 2024 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available online at:
https://calfire-
forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/weba
3 Dviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89
597ab693d008
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2020 List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. Accessed November 3, 2023 at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and- community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways
City of Beaumont (City)
2021a Beaumont General Plan 2040 Environmental Impact Report, Geology and Soils. Available at: https://www.beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/37635/46-Geology-and-Soils 2021b Beaumont General Plan 2040 Environmental Impact Report, Mineral Resources.
Available at: https://files.cecanet.opr.ca.gov/151573- 2/attachment/FwHwnz4JOFwAacvdybJDkAR367T VO9dSi0DFPTB8W fWxGZ7zRaMt6aK R5KmZLgMnMQteegYcIRk1UR0
2026 Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation Project. Available online:
•
https://www.beaumontca.gov/1438/Pennsylvania-Avenue-Grade-Separation California Department of Conservation (DOC)
2022a California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed October 2023. Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
2023 Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed November 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ecza 33/a 33/
County of Riverside (County)
2019 Riverside County Emergency Operations Plan. Available at:
https://riversideca.gov/utilities/sites/riversideca.gov.utilities/files/2019%20County%20o f%20Riverside%20EOP. adf
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
2023 Envirostor Database. Accessed October 2023.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
2024 GeoTracker Database. Accessed October 2023. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Ld» Cwz1I/ti7gj Inc,
23811 Washington Ave, C11O-333, Murrieta, CA 92562 phone 760-473-1253 January 30, 2025
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
SUBJECT: Construction Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Screening Evaluation for the Master Drainage Plan - Storm Drain Improvement Project (Pennsylvania Avenue and 6th Street) - City of Beaumont CA This Air Quality (AQ) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) screening letter evaluates potential impacts from construction improvements to the storm drainage system in the City of Beaumont, CA. The project involves installing approximately 5,000 feet of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with a diameter of either 84 or 102 -inches as well as 24 -inch laterals, catch basins, and junction structures to upgrade the existing system. Any interfering drainage systems will be abandoned in place or removed.
Project Location/Description
The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -in to 102 -inch RCP along 6th Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, and East 1st Street in the City to handle anticipated future flows. Manholes would be constructed for maintenance access at intervals of no more than 500 feet at the end of each line. Additional components to be installed include inlets and outlets to facilitate efficient entry and exit from the system. The RCP would feature grated openings to prevent the accumulation of debris. Some RCP demolition would occur but most of the existing structures would be protected. Approximately 13,000 cubic yards of material will be removed from the site to allow for the installation of the RCP and subgrade and approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material will be brought back to backfill and build up the structure necessary to reconstruct the roads.
The Proposed Project would include traffic control measures such as signs, barriers, and flaggers to ensure safety and maintain vehicle and pedestrian access along the right-of-way. Best management practices (BMPs) would include basins and silt fences to address soil erosion and protect water quality during construction. The affected right-of-way would be restored after installation of the RCP. The RCP would be installed at a depth no greater than 25 feet to allow for future construction and improvements in the area. Construction is anticipated to commence in the summer of 2025 and conclude in the spring of 2026. 1/30/2025
24-55 MDP Line 2 Stage 1 AQ and GHG
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Lein Consiul Mg, Inc
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
2 Glen View High School 0
Stewart Park
E 9th St
a,
o
a,
rn
7th St
0 Massachusetts
c ti i.
a, CO v
d ti L
cc 0
E 10th St
Cherry Gate
Apartment Homes 0
E 9th St
E 8th St
W a a,
> > >
4 4
E 5 c
m
o fi rn
!L • E L
E7th Sty • i
Tacos & Been ,0
0 E 5th St
Beaumont O
Animal Hospital
E 3rd St E 3rd St
ht Solution Plumbing 0
E 1st St
a,
4 E
a
rn
DC Electric 0
{O
m
Massachusetts Ave
Potrero Blvd
Tama r .,
Pennsylvania Ave
Pennsylvania Ave
Carnation Ln
Stephen's Lawn Care O
and Improvement
E 8th St
to
0 Extra Space Storage 0
Rodeway Inn
®Beaumont 1-10
From $77/night on
Rodeway Inn Beaumon...
Project
Vicinity
American Ave
E 6th St
Daf
0 First Street Storage
E1stSt F1atSt E1st St
v
Leon Multiservices o
livescan fingerprinting. . v'�
Qc
0 m
a
Q Sunnyslope Cemetery
Potrero Blvd
1/30/2025
24-55 MDP Line 2 Stage 1 AQ and GHG
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Lein Consul Mg, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
Figure 2: Proposed Project Configuration
w
I-
z
I-
V)
U
MICHIGAN AVE
MASSACHUSETTS AVE
14 13
Li 12
1t
11 L
6TH ST
9 UPRR
3--
z
z
7 - i2:138
1/30/2025
24-55 MDP Line 2 Stage 1 AQ and GHG
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Lein Consul Mg, Inc
City of Beaumont - Air Quality Thresholds of Significance 23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
To determine whether a project would create potential air quality impacts, the City of Beaumont uses South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SQAQMD) Air Quality Thresholds. The screening thresholds for construction and daily operations are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Screening Threshold for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant
Total Emissions - Pounds per Day (lb/day)
Respirable Particulate Matter (PMio and PM2.5)
150 and 55
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) - Construction
100
Sulfur Oxide (SOx)
150
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
550
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) - Construction
75 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) uses the term Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) Emission Inventory Branch (EIB) uses the term Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) to essentially define the same thing. There are minor deviations between compounds that define each term. However, for purposes of this study we will assume they are essentially the same due to the fact SCAQMD interchanges these words and because CaIEEMod 2022.1 directly calculates ROG in place of VOC.
In addition, the SCAQMD requires compliance with localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for NO2, CO, PM2.5 and PM10. The LST methodology was developed to be used as a tool to assist lead agencies to analyze localized impacts associated with project -specific level proposed projects and would not be applicable to regional projects such as general plans.
The LST methodology was last updated to incorporate the most recent ambient air quality standards (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008). The LST methodology is often utilized by most agencies governed under SCAQMD CEQA review. SCAQMD developed mass rate look -up tables for projects to assist agencies with development of LSTs (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2014)
The LSTs derived by SCAQMD which differentiate by source receptor areas. The Project would be represented by SRA #29 since the Project area is Nearest to the Banning Airport area. LSTs are provided for project areas which could be best represented by any size ranging between 1 and 5 acres. Projects larger than this would be required to generate site specific LST models.
The project site area will likely only have up to 2 acres of exposed materials, so a 2 -acre sized mass look table threshold should be applied to the Project which is conservative. 1/30/2025
24-55 MDP Line 2 Stage 1 AQ and GHG
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Lein Consuld/nd, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
The Project boundary is roughly adjacent to homes in some cases so the recommendations by SCAQMD is to use the 25 -meter LST threshold for all receptors up to 25 meters away. Table 2 below shows the worst -case project LST at the nearest receptor from the Project boundary (SCAQMD, 2009).
Table 2: LST Emission Thresholds (2 -Acre Site) — lb/day Pollutant
LST @ 25 meters
CO
1,541
PMio (Construction)
10 PM2.5 (Construction)
6 NO2 (Corrected utilizing NO2/NOX Ratio)
149
City of Beaumont - Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance To determine whether a project would create potential air quality impacts, the City of Beaumont uses the County of Riversides screening thresholds.
The County's Air Quality Element of the General Plan includes specific policies to address GHG emissions. The implementation mechanisms for these GHG-related policies are the Screening Tables for New Development, included in Appendix N of the General Plan. The Screening Tables allow new development projects to be a streamlined option for complying with the CEQA requirements for addressing GHG emissions. The screening tables are setup similar to a checklist with points allocated to certain elements that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; if the project garners 100 points (by including enough GHG-reducing elements), then the project is consistent with Riverside County's plan for reducing emissions (County of Riverside, 2019).
Projects that are sufficiently small enough will have the option of preparing a project -specific technical analysis to quantify and mitigate GHG emissions. A threshold level above 3,000 Metric Ton (MT) CO2e per year will be used to identify projects that require the use of Screening Tables or a project -specific technical analysis to quantify and mitigate projects. Since this project involves the linear construction of drainage pipes within a 5,000 -foot alignment along an existing roadway, which will be repaved with asphalt upon completion, significant operational GHG emissions are not anticipated.
Construction Emissions Calculation Methodology
Air Quality impacts related to construction will be calculated using the latest CaIEEMod 2022.1 air quality model which was developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District 1/30/2025
24-55 MDP Line 2 Stage 1 AQ and GHG
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Lein Consul Mg, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
(SCAQMD). The CaIEEMod input/output are provided in AttachmentA to this report. Based on review of the site, the total Project area is approximately 12.6 acres over the entire alignment and could export as much as 13,000 CY of materials offsite and import as much as 5,000 CY of materials onsite. This estimate is considered conservative and would likely be less. The estimated construction equipment, phasing and durations are provided below in Table 3.
Table 3: Expected Construction Equipment
Equipment Identification
Start Dates
Completion Dates
Quantity
Linear, Excavation and Export
8/1/2025
11/13/2025
Off -Highway Trucks
1 Excavators
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws
2 Skid Steer Loaders
1 Linear, Set Drainage Piping Network &
Sub -Grade Construction including
Material Import
10/15/2025
1/27/2026
Skid Steer Loaders
1 Excavators
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 Plate Compactors
1 Off -Highway Trucks
1 Linear, Asphalt Paving Placement
1/28/2026
3/10/2026
Off -Highway Trucks
1 Rollers
1 Pavers
1 Paving Equipment
1 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations required that — starting in 2012 — all off - road equipment produced needs to meet the basic requirements for Tier 4 compliance (Tier 4 Interim) (CARB, 2023). Offroad equipment fleets are managed by CARB and are typically based on total horsepower owned. Owners are limited to what types of equipment they must maintain as their fleet and can include equipment from rental companies. After 2023, no fleet owner can add equipment less than Tier 3 to their fleet (California Air Resouces Board, 2022).
Based on this, the Project would at a minimum use Tier 3 construction equipment having diesel particulate filters installed and would wet the soil daily during grading operations. These design features were incorporated in all modeling and though it is expected that all equipment used for the construction of this Project meets this assumption without intervention, it is 1/30/2025
24-55 MDP Line 2 Stage 1 AQ and GHG
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Lein Consuld/nd, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
recommended that these design features be included in the conditions of approval for the Grading Permits which would be issued by the City of Beaumont.
Air Quality Construction Findings
Utilizing the CaIEEMod inputs for the model as discussed above and shown in AttachmentA to this report, we find that construction of the project generates less than significant impacts based on SCAQMD's significance thresholds and localized significance thresholds applied at 25 meters from the Project boundary (See Table 4 below). These emission calculations assume design features discussed above are included. Based on this, air quality mitigation for construction would not be required. Cumulative impacts would not be expected since calculated emissions are so low relative to the City's significance thresholds.
Table 4: Expected Construction Emissions Summary (lb/day) ROG
NOX
CO
SO2
PMla
PM2.5
Maximum Daily Construction
Emissions
0.94 24.5
25 0.06
1.78 1.2
City Screening Threshold
75 100
550
150
150
55 LST at 25 meters from Project
149
1,541
10 6
Exceeds Screening
Threshold
No
No
No
No
No
No
The Project would have the potential to generate onsite odors during construction which normally include short term activities such as paving and possibly painting. Impacts associated with these sources are short term in terms of durations which is identified in Table 3 above.
Given this, odor impacts would therefore be considered less than significant.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD AQMP or applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)?
The project is to install underground drainage piping repair project and would not modify any existing uses. Given this the Project would be consistent with the City's General Plan. The Project has been shown to generate construction emissions that would be less than significant when compared to the City's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, as the project would not create a new land use or generate construction emissions exceeding the City's approved air quality significance thresholds, it would not conflict with the implementation of the City's General Plan or SCAQMD air quality management plans.
1/30/2025
24-55 MDP Line 2 Stage 1 AQ and GHG
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Ldn Consulting, Inc.
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
Result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? The Project would generate less than significant construction emissions when compared to SCAQMD air quality thresholds, given this, the project would not violate any applicable air quality standards.
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 (PM10, PM2.5 or exceed quantitative thresholds for 03 precursors, oxides of nitrogen [NOXJ and Volatile Organic Compounds [VOCsJ)? Based on this analysis, the expected construction and emissions were found to be less than significant when compared to SCAQMD air quality thresholds. In addition, the emissions expected would be small when compared to SCAQMD thresholds. Given this, cumulative impacts or impacts which would be additive between the proposed Project and any nearby Project would not likely increase emissions to a point where SCAQMD thresholds would be exceeded in the general vicinity of the proposed Project. Given this, the project would have a less than significant cumulative impact.
Expose sensitive receptors (including, but not limited to, schools, hospitals, resident care facilities, or day-care centers) to substantial pollutant concentrations? The proposed Project construction would be adjacent to homes along the construction alignment. The project is relatively small and would not generate significant levels of air quality emissions when compared to City thresholds based on screening thresholds developed by SCAQMD including LSTs for the closest residential receptors using a 25 -meter LST. In addition, as a design feature, all construction equipment would be Tier 3 or better and diesel particulates would be filtered. The Project would also wet all soil materials daily to reduce dust. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to significant air quality emissions, and no adverse impacts to human health are anticipated.
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The Project would have the potential to generate onsite odors during construction which normally include short term activities such as paving and possibly painting. Impacts associated with these sources are short term and would therefore be considered less than significant. Also, since operational odors are not typically generated from drainage facilities, a less than significant odor impact would be expected from Operations. Given this, the Project would not create a significant odor impact affecting a substantial number of people. 1/30/2025
24-55 MDP Line 2 Stage 1 AQ and GHG
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
GHG Construction Findings
Ldn Consul Mg, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
Will the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 203 MT of CO2e during the 2025 construction year and 60.6 MT of CO2e during 2026. If construction were to occur entirely within a single year, the total GHG emissions would be 263.6 MT of CO2e, which remains well below the County's screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e. Additionally, as there will be no operational emissions once construction is complete, the project will never exceed the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold. Therefore, the project would not result in significant direct or indirect impacts under CEQA and would not require further analysis or mitigation.
Will the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The project will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The project is expected to produce no more than a total of 263.6 MT of CO2e per year, contributing minimally to the cumulative environmental impact. This amount is considered less than significant in the context of the overall greenhouse gas inventory.
Therefore, it aligns with existing policies and regulations aimed at reducing emissions and does not require further analysis or mitigation.
Given this, the project would be considered to generate less than significant AQ and GHG emissions. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (760) 473-1253.
Sincerely,
Ldn Consulting, Inc.
Draft
Jeremy Louden
Attachments: CaIEEMod Model Results
1/30/2025
24-55 MDP Line 2 Stage 1 AQ and GHG
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
References:
Lein Consul Mg, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
California Air Resouces Board. (2022). Guide to Off -Road Vehicle & Equipment Regulations Retrieved from
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/offroadzone/pdfs/offroad_booklet . pdf CARB. (2023). Non -road Diesel Engine Certification Tier Chart. Retrieved from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/non-road-diesel-engine-certification-tier- chart
County of Riverside. (2019). P/anning.rct/ma.org. Retrieved September 27, 2015, from Climate Action Plan Update:
https://planning . rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop416/files/migrated/Portals-14-CAP-2019- 2019-CAP-Update-Ful I. pdf
SCAQMD. (2009, Oct 21). Localized Significance Thresholds Lookup Tables Retrieved 2015, from http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-Ist-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2 South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2014). Localized Significance Thresholds.
Retrieved 2014, from http://www.agmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/cega/air-quality- analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds
1/30/2025
24-55 MDP Line 2 Stage 1 AQ and GHG
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.2. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Mitigated
3.3. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade (2025) - Unmitigated
3.4. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade (2025) - Mitigated
3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade (2026) - Unmitigated
3.6. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade (2026) - Mitigated
1 /38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025
3.7. Linear, Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
3.8. Linear, Paving (2026) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off -Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
2/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
3/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
4/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field
Value
Project Name
Construction Start Date
Lead Agency
Land Use Scale
Analysis Level for Defaults
Windspeed (m/s)
Precipitation (days)
Location
County
City
Air District
Air Basin
TAZ
EDFZ
Electric Utility
Gas Utility
App Version
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1
1/1/2025
Project/site
County
2.50 19.2
33.923667361571006, -116.96613626143363
Riverside -South Coast
Beaumont
South Coast AQMD
South Coast
5632
11 Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype
Size
Unit
Lot Acreage
Building Area (sq ft)
Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population
Description
5/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 User Defined Linear
0.95 Mile
12.6 0.00
—
—
—
Install 104",84"and
24" Main Drainage
System including
Laterals, junctions
and drains
1.3. User -Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector
Measure Title
Construction
C-6
Use Diesel Particulate Filters
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Unmit.
0.56 13.8
13.6 0.03
0.65 0.47
1.12 0.60
0.13 0.73
-
3,785
3,785
0.12 0.26
3,868
Mit.
0.56 13.8
13.6 0.03
0.12 0.47
0.60 0.11
0.13 0.24
-
3,785
3,785
0.12 0.26
3,868
%
Reduced
-
-
-
-
81%
-
47%
81%
—
67%
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Unmit.
0.94 24.5
25.0 0.06
1.11 0.68
1.78 1.01
0.19 1.20
-
6,580
6,580
0.22 0.39
6,703
Mit.
0.94 24.5
25.0 0.06
0.20 0.68
0.88 0.19
0.19 0.37
-
6,580
6,580
0.22 0.39
6,703
%
Reduced
-
-
-
-
82%
-
51%
81%
—
69%
—
—
—
—
—
—
Average
Daily
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
parip
—
anR of
—
Q1 fl
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Unmit.
0.17 4.49
4.53 0.01
0.20 0.13
0.33 0.19
0.03 0.22
-
1,204
1,204
0.04 0.07
1,227
Mit.
0.17 4.49
4.53 0.01
0.04 0.13
0.16 0.03
0.03 0.07
-
1,204
1,204
0.04 0.07
1,227
%
Reduced
-
-
-
-
82%
-
50%
81%
—
69%
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Unmit.
0.03 0.82
0.83 < 0.005
0.04 0.02
0.06 0.03
0.01 0.04
-
199
199
0.01 0.01
203
Mit.
0.03 0.82
0.83 < 0.005
0.01 0.02
0.03 0.01
0.01 0.01
-
199
199
0.01 0.01
203
Reduced
-
-
-
-
82%
-
50%
81%
—
69%
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
—
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2025
0.56 13.8
13.6 0.03
0.65 0.47
1.12 0.60
0.13 0.73
-
3,785
3,785
0.12 0.26
3,868
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2025
0.94 24.5
25.0 0.06
1.11 0.68
1.78 1.01
0.19 1.20
-
6,580
6,580
0.22 0.39
6,703
2026
0.44 10.6
12.6 0.02
0.46 0.26
0.69 0.42
0.07 0.47
-
2,790
2,790
0.10 0.13
2,833
Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2025
0.17 4.49
4.53 0.01
0.20 0.13
0.33 0.19
0.03 0.22
-
1,204
1,204
0.04 0.07
1,227
2026
0.06 1.43
1.65 < 0.005
0.06 0.03
0.09 0.05
0.01 0.06
-
361
361
0.01 0.01
366
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2025
0.03 0.82
0.83 < 0.005
0.04 0.02
0.06 0.03
0.01 0.04
-
199
199
0.01 0.01
203
2026
0.01 0.26
0.30 < 0.005
0.01 0.01
0.02 0.01
< 0.005
0.01 -
59.8 59.8
< 0.005
< 0.005
60.6
7/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2025
0.56 13.8
13.6 0.03
0.12 0.47
0.60 0.11
0.13 0.24
-
3,785
3,785
0.12 0.26
3,868
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2025
0.94 24.5
25.0 0.06
0.20 0.68
0.88 0.19
0.19 0.37
-
6,580
6,580
0.22 0.39
6,703
2026
0.44 10.6
12.6 0.02
0.08 0.26
0.33 0.07
0.07 0.13
-
2,790
2,790
0.10 0.13
2,833
Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2025
0.17 4.49
4.53 0.01
0.04 0.13
0.16 0.03
0.03 0.07
-
1,204
1,204
0.04 0.07
1,227
2026
0.06 1.43
1.65 < 0.005
0.01 0.03
0.04 0.01
0.01 0.02
-
361
361
0.01 0.01
366
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2025
0.03 0.82
0.83 < 0.005
0.01 0.02
0.03 0.01
0.01 0.01
-
199
199
0.01 0.01
203
2026
0.01 0.26
0.30 < 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
59.8 59.8
< 0.005
< 0.005
60.6 3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
ROG
NOx
co
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
8/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Off -Road 0.51
Equipment
12.2 12.7
0.02 0.62
Dust
From
Material
Movement
0.62 0.57
0.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005
-
2,207
2,207
0.09 0.02
2,215
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.51
Equipment
12.2 12.7
0.02 0.62
0.62 0.57
0.57 2,207 2,207 0.09 0.02 2,215
Dust
From
Material
Movement
< 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off -Road 0.10
Equipment
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Dust
From
Material
Movement
2.50 2.62 < 0.005 0.13
0.13 0.12
0.12 454 454 0.02 < 0.005 455
< 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off -Road 0.02
Equipment
0.46 0.48 < 0.005 0.02
Dust
From
Material
Movement
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.02 0.02 0.02 75.1 75.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 75.3
< 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 -
9/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Offsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.03 0.03
0.46 0.00
0.00 0.08
0.08 0.00
0.02 0.02
-
84.6 84.6
< 0.005
< 0.005
85.8 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Hauling
0.02 1.66
0.40 0.01
0.03 0.39
0.42 0.03
0.11 0.14
-
1,493
1,493
0.03 0.24
1,567
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.03 0.03
0.35 0.00
0.00 0.08
0.08 0.00
0.02 0.02
-
77.7 77.7
< 0.005
< 0.005
78.7 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Hauling
0.02 1.73
0.41 0.01
0.03 0.39
0.42 0.03
0.11 0.14
-
1,494
1,494
0.03 0.24
1,565
Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.01 0.01
0.08 0.00
0.00 0.02
0.02 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
16.2 16.2
< 0.005
< 0.005
16.4 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Hauling
< 0.005 0.36
0.08 < 0.005
0.01 0.08
0.09 0.01
0.02 0.03
-
307
307
0.01 0.05
322
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.00
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
2.68 2.68
< 0.005
< 0.005
2.72 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Hauling
< 0.005 0.07
0.02 < 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 -
50.8 50.8
< 0.005
0.01 53.3
3.2. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Onsite
10/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off -Road 0.51 12.2 12.7 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 2,207 2,207 0.09 0.02 2,215 Equipment
Dust < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road 0.51 12.2 12.7 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 2,207 2,207 0.09 0.02 2,215 Equipment
Dust < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
Off -Road 0.10 2.50 2.62 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 454 454 0.02 < 0.005 455 Equipment
Dust < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual
Off -Road 0.02 0.46 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 - 75.1 75.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 75.3 Equipment
11 /38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—
—
—
—
—
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—
—
—
—
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Offsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.03 0.03
0.46 0.00
0.00 0.08
0.08 0.00
0.02 0.02
-
84.6 84.6
< 0.005
< 0.005
85.8 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Hauling
0.02 1.66
0.40 0.01
0.03 0.39
0.42 0.03
0.11 0.14
-
1,493
1,493
0.03 0.24
1,567
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.03 0.03
0.35 0.00
0.00 0.08
0.08 0.00
0.02 0.02
-
77.7 77.7
< 0.005
< 0.005
78.7 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Hauling
0.02 1.73
0.41 0.01
0.03 0.39
0.42 0.03
0.11 0.14
-
1,494
1,494
0.03 0.24
1,565
Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.01 0.01
0.08 0.00
0.00 0.02
0.02 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
16.2 16.2
< 0.005
< 0.005
16.4 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Hauling
< 0.005
0.36 0.08
< 0.005
0.01 0.08
0.09 0.01
0.02 0.03
-
307
307
0.01 0.05
322
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.00
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
2.68 2.68
< 0.005
< 0.005
2.72 Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Hauling
< 0.005
0.07 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 -
50.8 50.8
< 0.005
0.01 53.3
3.3. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
12/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
Average
Daily
Off -Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
ROG
0.37 0.00
0.06 0.00
Annual —
Off -Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.01 0.00
NOx
9.73 0.00
1.49 0.00
0.27 0.00
CO
11.3 0.00
1.72 0.00
0.31 0.00
SO2
0.02 0.00
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
0.00 PM10E
0.44 0.00
0.07 0.00
0.01 0.00
PM10D
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
0.00 PM10T
0.44 < 0.005
0.00 0.07
< 0.005
0.00 0.01
< 0.005
0.00 PM2.5E
0.40 0.00
0.06 0.00
0.01 0.00
PM2.5D
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
0.00 PM2.5T
0.40 < 0.005
0.00 0.06
< 0.005
0.00 0.01
< 0.005
0.00 BCO2
NBCO2
2,043
0.00 312
0.00 51.6
0.00 CO2T
2,043
0.00 312
0.00 51.6
0.00 CH4
0.08 0.00
0.01 0.00
< 0.005
0.00 N2O
0.02 0.00
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
0.00 CO2e
2,050
0.00 313
0.00 51.8
0.00 Offsite
— Page -413 of 910
13/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Vendor
< 0.005
0.21 0.06
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.05 0.05
< 0.005
0.01 0.02
-
184
184
< 0.005
0.03 192
Hauling
0.01 0.67
0.16 < 0.005
0.01 0.15
0.16 0.01
0.04 0.05
-
575
575
0.01 0.09
602
Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Vendor
< 0.005
0.03 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
28.0 28.0
< 0.005
< 0.005
29.3 Hauling
< 0.005
0.10 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.02 0.02
< 0.005
0.01 0.01
-
87.7 87.7
< 0.005
0.01 91.9
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Vendor
< 0.005
0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
4.64 4.64
< 0.005
< 0.005
4.86 Hauling
< 0.005
0.02 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
14.5 14.5
< 0.005
< 0.005
15.2 3.4. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BO02
NBC02
C02T
CH4
N20
C02e
Onsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off -Road
Equipment
0.37 9.73
11.3 0.02
0.07 -
0.07 0.06
-
0.06 -
2,043
2,043
0.08 0.02
2,050
14/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Dust
From
Material
Movement
< 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off -Road
Equipment
0.06 1.49
1.72 < 0.005
0.01 -
0.01 0.01
-
0.01 -
312
312
0.01 < 0.005
313
Dust
From
Material
Movement
—
—
—
—
—
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—
—
—
—
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off -Road
Equipment
0.01 0.27
0.31 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
51.6 51.6
< 0.005
< 0.005
51.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
—
—
—
—
—
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
—
—
—
—
—
—
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Offsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Vendor
< 0.005
0.21 0.06
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.05 0.05
< 0.005
0.01 0.02
-
184
184
< 0.005
0.03 192
Hauling
0.01 0.67
0.16 < 0.005
0.01 0.15
0.16 0.01
0.04 0.05
-
575
575
0.01 0.09
602
15/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Vendor
< 0.005
0.03 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
28.0 28.0
< 0.005
< 0.005
29.3 Hauling
< 0.005
0.10 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.02 0.02
< 0.005
0.01 0.01
-
87.7 87.7
< 0.005
0.01 91.9
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Vendor
< 0.005
0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
4.64 4.64
< 0.005
< 0.005
4.86 Hauling
< 0.005 0.02
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
14.5 14.5
< 0.005
< 0.005
15.2 3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
Average
Daily
ROG
0.37 0.00
Off -Road 0.02
Equipment
NOx
9.73 0.00
CO
SO2
PM10E
11.3 0.02 0.44
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.51 0.60 < 0.005 0.02
PM10D
< 0.005
0.00 PM10T
PM2.5E
0.44 0.40
< 0.005
0.00 0.00
PM2.5D
< 0.005
0.00 PM2.5T
0.40 < 0.005
0.00 BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
2,045 2,045
0.00 0.00
CH4
0.08 0.00
N2O
0.02 0.00
CO2e
2,052
0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 108
16/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Dust
From
Material
Movement
< 0.005 < 0.005 - < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Annual
Off -Road < 0.005 0.09 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
<
0.005
-
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
<
0.005
-
17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.9
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
truck
Offsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 0.20 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 181 181 < 0.005 0.03 189 Hauling 0.01 0.65 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 - 565 565 0.01 0.09 592 Average
Daily
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.55 9.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.0 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 29.8 29.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 31.3 Annual
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.58 1.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.66 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < o.oRage 4.0(5of 91)®05 < 0.005 4.94 4.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.18 17/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025
3.6. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off -Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
Average
Daily
Off -Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
ROG
0.37 0.00
0.02 0.00
Annual —
Off -Road
Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
< 0.005
NOx
9.73 0.00
0.51 0.00
0.09 CO
11.3 0.00
0.60 0.00
0.11 SO2
0.02 0.00
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
PM10E
0.07 0.00
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
PM10D
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
PM10T
0.07 < 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
PM2.5E
0.06 0.00
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
PM2.5D
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
0.00 < 0.005 - < 0.005
Paae 418 of 910
PM2.5T
0.06 < 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
BCO2
NBCO2
2,045
0.00 108
0.00 17.9
CO2T
2,045
0.00 108
0.00 17.9
CH4
0.08 0.00
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
N2O
0.02 0.00
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
CO2e
2,052
0.00 108
0.00 17.9
18/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Offsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Vendor
< 0.005
0.20 0.06
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.05 0.05
< 0.005
0.01 0.02
-
181
181
< 0.005
0.03 189
Hauling
0.01 0.65
0.15 < 0.005
0.01 0.15
0.16 0.01
0.04 0.05
-
565
565
0.01 0.09
592
Average
Daily
—
—
0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.00 —
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Vendor
< 0.005
0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
9.55 9.55
< 0.005
< 0.005
10.0 Hauling
< 0.005
0.03 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
29.8 29.8
< 0.005
< 0.005
31.3 Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Vendor
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
1.58 1.58
< 0.005
< 0.005
1.66 Hauling
< 0.005
0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
4.94 4.94
< 0.005
< 0.005
5.18 3.7. Linear, Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
ROG
NOx
Onsite
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
CO
S02
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
19/38
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N20
CO2e
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Off -Road
Equipment
0.38 10.2
11.9 0.02
0.42 -
0.42 0.38
-
0.38 -
2,089
2,089
0.08 0.02
2,096
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off -Road
Equipment
0.03 0.83
0.97 < 0.005
0.03 -
0.03 0.03
-
0.03 -
172
172
0.01 < 0.005
172
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off -Road
Equipment
0.01 0.15
0.18 < 0.005
0.01 -
0.01 0.01
-
0.01 -
28.4 28.4
< 0.005
< 0.005
28.5 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Offsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
0.05 0.05
0.65 0.00
0.00 0.16
0.16 0.00
0.04 0.04
-
152
152
< 0.005
0.01 154
Vendor
0.01 0.40
0.12 < 0.005
0.01 0.10
0.11 0.01
0.03 0.03
-
361
361
0.01 0.06
378
Hauling
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.06 0.00
0.00 0.01
0.01 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
12.7 12.7
< 0.005
< 0.005
12.8 Vendor
< 0.005
0.03 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
29.7 29.7
< 0.005
< 0.005
31.1 Hauling
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.00
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
2.10 2.10
< 0.005
< 0.005
2.13 Vendor
< 0.005
0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.09§2ra a.9h5nf
4)(9°5
< 0.005
-
4.92 4.92
< 0.005
< 0.005
5.15 20 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Hauling 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Linear, Paving (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Onsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off -Road
Equipment
0.38 10.2
11.9 0.02
0.06 -
0.06 0.06
-
0.06 -
2,089
2,089
0.08 0.02
2,096
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Average
Daily
—
—
0.83 —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off -Road
Equipment
0.03 0.97
< 0.005
0.01 -
0.01 < 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
172
172
0.01 < 0.005
172
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off -Road
Equipment
0.01 0.15
0.18 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
< 0.005
-
28.4 28.4
< 0.005
< 0.005
28.5 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Offsite
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Page
—
421 of
—
910
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
21 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Worker
0.05 0.05
0.65 0.00
0.00 0.16
0.16 0.00
0.04 0.04
-
152
152
< 0.005
0.01 154
Vendor
0.01 0.40
0.12 < 0.005
0.01 0.10
0.11 0.01
0.03 0.03
-
361
361
0.01 0.06
378
Hauling
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Average
Daily
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.06 0.00
0.00 0.01
0.01 0.00
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
12.7 12.7
< 0.005
< 0.005
12.8 Vendor
< 0.005
0.03 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.01
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
29.7 29.7
< 0.005
< 0.005
31.1 Hauling
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Annual
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Worker
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.01 0.00
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
0.00 < 0.005
< 0.005
-
2.10 2.10
< 0.005
< 0.005
2.13 Vendor
< 0.005
0.01 < 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
-
4.92 4.92
< 0.005
< 0.005
5.15 Hauling
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
-
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily ton/vr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily MT/vr for annual) Vegetatio
n
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
— Page -422 of 9-10
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
22 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Avoided
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste
red
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Dnnon'
—
Yznf01l1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
23 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Avoided
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste
red
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Avoided
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste
red
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
Removed
Subtotal
—
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily,
By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM1OD
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
— Page -424 of 910
24/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Total
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
8O02
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total
Annual
Total
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species
ROG
NOx
co
SO2
PM10E
PM10D
PM10T
PM2.5E
PM2.5D
PM2.5T
BCO2
NBCO2
CO2T
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Avoided
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste
red
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
25 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Avoided
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste
red
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Annual
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Avoided
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Sequeste
red
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Removed
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub -Grade
Phase Type
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub -Grade
Start Date
8/1/2025
10/15/2025
End Date
11/13/2025
1/27/2026
Days Per Week
5.00 5.00
Work Days per Phase
Phase Description
75.0 75.0
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
1/28/2026
3/10/2026
Dnge 426 f Q10
o
5.00 30.0
26 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025
5.2. Off -Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name
Equipment Type
Fuel Type
Engine Tier
Number per Day
Hours Per Day
Horsepower
Load Factor
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Off -Highway Trucks Diesel
Excavators
Concrete/Industrial Diesel
Saws
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Tier 3
1.00 Diesel
Tier 3
Tier 3
1.00 8.00
376
8.00 2.00
8.00 36.0
0.38 0.38
33.0 0.73
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel
Excavators Diesel
Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel
hoes
Tier 3
Tier 3
1.00 8.00
71.0 0.37
1.00 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Plate Compactors Diesel
Off -Highway Trucks Diesel
Off -Highway Trucks Diesel
Rollers Diesel
Pavers Diesel
Paving Equipment Diesel
Tier 3
1.00 8.00
71.0 0.37
8.00 36.0
0.38 Tier 3
1.00 8.00
84.0 0.37
Tier 3
1.00 8.00
8.00 0.43
Tier 3
1.00 8.00
376
0.38 Tier 3
1.00 8.00
376
0.38 Tier 3
1.00 8.00
36.0 0.38
Tier 3
1.00 8.00
81.0 0.42
Tier 3
1.00 8.00
89.0 0.36
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Equipment Type
Fuel Type
Off -Highway Trucks Diesel
Engine Tier
Tier 3
Number per Day
1.00
27/38
Hours Per Day
Horsepower
Load Factor
8.00 376
0.38 Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub -Grade
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Excavators
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Skid Steer Loaders
Skid Steer Loaders
Excavators
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Plate Compactors
Off -Highway Trucks
Off -Highway Trucks
Rollers
Pavers
Paving Equipment
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Tier 3
1.00 Tier 3 2.00
Tier 3 1.00
Tier 3 1.00
Tier 3 1.00
Tier 3 1.00
Tier 3 1.00
Tier 3 1.00
Tier 3
Tier 3
Tier 3
Tier 3
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
8.00 8.00
8.00 8.00
8.00 8.00
8.00 8.00
8.00 8.00
8.00 8.00
36.0 33.0
71.0 71.0
36.0 84.0
8.00 376
376
36.0 81.0
89.0 0.38
0.73 0.37
0.37 0.38
0.37 0.43
0.38 0.38
0.38 0.42
0.36 5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Trip Type
Worker
Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Hauling
Onsite truck
One -Way Trips per Day
6.00 0.00
21.7
Miles per Trip
18.5 10.2
20.0 Vehicle Mix
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
28 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
0.00 6.00
8.33 12.0
12.0 0.00
18.5 10.2
20.0 18.5
10.2 20.0
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Trip Type
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
One -Way Trips per Day
6.00 0.00
21.7 0.00
6.00 8.33
Miles per Trip
18.5 10.2
20.0 18.5
10.2 20.0
Vehicle Mix
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
29 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Linear, Paving
Worker
Vendor
Hauling
Onsite truck
12.0 12.0
0.00 18.5
10.2 20.0
LDA,LDT1,LDT2
HHDT,MHDT
HHDT
HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied
Water unpaved roads twice daily
PM10 Reduction
55%
PM2.5 Reduction
55%
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name
Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non -Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non -Residential Exterior Area Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name
Linear, Grading & Excavation
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub -Grade
Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
0.00 5,000
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
13,000
0.00 Acres Graded (acres)
4.50 4.50
Material Demolished (sq. ft.)
0.00 0.00
Acres Paved (acres)
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied
Frequency (per day)
PM10 Reduction
PM2.5 Reduction
Water Exposed Area
2 61%
61%
30 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use
Area Paved (acres)
% Asphalt
User Defined Linear
6.00 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (Ib/MWh)
Year
2025
kWh per Year
0.00 2026
0.00 CO2
532
CH4
0.03 532
0.03 N2O
< 0.005
< 0.005
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type
Vegetation Soil Type
Initial Acres
Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type
Vegetation Soil Type
Initial Acres
Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type
Initial Acres
Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type
Initial Acres
Final Acres
31 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type
Number
Electricity Saved (kWh/year)
Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type
Number
Electricity Saved (kWh/year)
Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal -Adapt midcentury 2040-2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard
Result for Project Location
Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Wildfire
31.4 5.35
24.3 annual days of extreme heat
annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
meters of inundation depth
annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal -Adapt, 2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about 3/4 an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal -Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal -Adapt (2040-2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
32 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Climate Hazard
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Wildfire
Flooding
Drought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
Exposure Score
4 N/A
1 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 Sensitivity Score
0 N/A
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 Adaptive Capacity Score
0 N/A
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 Vulnerability Score
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard
Exposure Score
Sensitivity Score
Adaptive Capacity Score
Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Extreme Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Wildfire
Flooding
Drought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
4 N/A
1 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 1
N/A
1 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 1
N/A
1 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 4
N/A
2 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
33 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator
Exposure Indicators
AQ-Ozone
AQ-PM
AQ-DPM
Drinking Water
Lead Risk Housing
Pesticides
Toxic Releases
Traffic
Effect Indicators
CleanUp Sites
Groundwater
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators
Impaired Water Bodies
Solid Waste
Sensitive Population
Asthma
Cardio-vascular
Low Birth Weights
Result for Project Census Tract
98.7 47.1
89.0 23.6
90.0 23.7
35.0 78.2
50.3 0.00
93.1 12.5
9.67 69.0
94.7 93.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
Pa e43
A .,f 01 ("1
g T VI V 1
34/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Education
Housing
Linguistic
Poverty
Unemployment
67.8 12.3
49.1 91.9
85.5 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator
Economic
Above Poverty
Employed
Median HI
Education
Bachelor's or higher
High school enrollment
Preschool enrollment
Transportation
Auto Access
Active commuting
Social
2 -parent households
Voting
Neighborhood
Alcohol availability
Park access
Retail density
Result for Project Census Tract
25.895034
9.264724753
12.45989991
12.06210702
100
55.65250866
46.70858463
44.39881945
9.5983575
7.108943924
13.66611061
57.56448094
60.43885538
Supermarket access
2.399589375
rage 4,50 or y I u
35 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Tree canopy
Housing
Homeownership
Housing habitability
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden
Uncrowded housing
Health Outcomes
Insured adults
Arthritis
Asthma ER Admissions
High Blood Pressure
Cancer (excluding skin)
Asthma
Coronary Heart Disease
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Diagnosed Diabetes
Life Expectancy at Birth
Cognitively Disabled
Physically Disabled
Heart Attack ER Admissions
Mental Health Not Good
Chronic Kidney Disease
Obesity
Pedestrian Injuries
Physical Health Not Good
Stroke
Health Risk Behaviors
6.723983062
20.32593353
12.03644296
73.38637239
5.581932504
20.37726165
7.404080585
0.0 30.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
13.4 52.2
36.0 1.8
0.0 0.0
0.0 19.6
0.0 0.0
36 / 38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 Binge Drinking
0.0 Current Smoker
0.0 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity
0.0 Climate Change Exposures
—
Wildfire Risk
0.0 SLR Inundation Area
0.0 Children
10.6 Elderly
75.9 English Speaking
46.2 Foreign -born
35.1 Outdoor Workers
13.0 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity
—
Impervious Surface Cover
70.9 Traffic Density
80.0 Traffic Access
23.0 Other Indices
—
Hardship
82.4 Other Decision Support
—
2016 Voting
23.7 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Project Located in a Low -Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) Result for Project Census Tract
85.0 11.0
Yes
Yes
No
37/38
Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Detailed Report, 1/18/2025 a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen
Justification
Construction: Construction Phases
Construction: Off -Road Equipment
Construction: Trips and VMT
Construction: Dust From Material Movement
Construction: Paving
Estimated Work Schedule
Construction Schedule
Increased trips to account for estimated workers and added additional vendors Roughly 13,000 CY export to make way for pipes and 5,000 CY import of adequate subgrade to set pipes
6 acres assumed to be repaved
38 / 38
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION REPORT
FOR THE BEAUMONT MDP LINE 2 PROJECT
BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
EXP
1650 Iowa Avenue Suite 110
Riverside, CA 92507
CHAMBERS
GROUP
Prepared by:
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
3151 Airway Ave., Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(949)261-5414
December 2025
Revised June 2026
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1.0 - SUMMARY 1
SECTION 2.0 - INTRODUCTION 3
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AREA 3
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING 4
SECTION 3.0 - JURISDICTIONAL WATERS REGULATORY OVERVIEW 5 SECTION 4.0 - METHODS 7
4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION 7
4.1.1 Literature Review 7
4.1.2 Biological Reconnaissance -level Survey 9
4.2 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS 9
4.3 MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 11
SECTION 5.0 - RESULTS 13
5.1 BIOLOGICAL RECONISSANCE-LEVEL SURVEY 13
5.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 13
5.2.1 Annual Non-native Grassland 15
5.2.2 Upland Mustard and Star -thistle Field 15
5.2.3 Disturbed Goodding's Willow Woodland 16
5.2.4 Disturbed Perennial Buckwheat/Sand-aster Field 16
5.2.5 Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub 17
5.2.6 Disturbed Freemont Cottonwood Woodland 18
5.2.7 Disturbed Palmer's Goldenbush Scrub 18
5.2.8 Giant Reed Marsh 18
5.2.9 Ruderal 19
5.2.10 Ornamental Landscaping 19
5.2.11 Developed 20
5.2.12 Bare Ground 20
5.3 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 20
5.3.1 Special Status Plants 22
5.3.2 Special Status Wildlife 24
5.4 GENERAL PLANTS 25
5.5 GENERAL WILDLIFE 25
5.6 SOILS 26
5.7 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS 28
5.7.1 Hydrology and Connectivity 28
5.7.2 Delineated Waters 33
5.7.3 CDFW/MSHCP Riparian Habitat 36
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.7.4 Summary of Jurisdictional Findings 36
5.7.5 Potential USACE Jurisdiction 37
5.7.6 Potential RWQCB Jurisdiction 37
5.7.7 Potential CDFW Jurisdiction 37
5.7.8 Potential MSHCP Jurisdiction 38
5.8 MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 38
5.8.1 Covered Roads 38
5.8.2 Covered Public Access Activities 40
5.8.3 Reserve Assembly Analysis 40
5.8.4 Vegetation Mapping and Species Compendia 40
5.8.5 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools 40
5.8.6 Other Section 6.1.2 Species 42
5.9 PROTECTION OF NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES 42
5.10 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES 44
5.10.1 Criteria Area Plant Species 44
5.10.2 Amphibians 44
5.10.3 Burrowing Owl 44
5.10.4 Mammals 44
5.11 INFORMATION ON OTHER SPECIES 44
5.11.1 Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly 44
5.11.2 Coastal California gnatcatcher 45
5.11.3 Species not Adequately Conserved 45
5.12 URBAN/WILDLANDS INTERFACE 50
5.13 CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES 50
5.14 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 50
SECTION 6.0 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 51
6.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 51
6.2 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS 51
6.3 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE 51
6.3.1 Burrowing Owl 52
6.3.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as Amended (16 USC 703-711) 53
6.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS 53
6.4.1 Federal Permits 54
6.4.2 State Permits 54
6.5 MSHCP CONSISTENCY 54
6.5.1 Riparian/Riverine 54
6.5.2 Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species 55
6.5.3 Burrowing Owl 55
6.5.4 Best Management Practices 55
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MOP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
SECTION 7.0 - REFERENCES 56
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A -
APPENDIX B -
APPENDIX C -
APPENDIX D -
APPENDIX E -
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
PHOTO STATION MAP AND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
PLANT SPECIES LIST
WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
OHWM AND WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Vegetation Communities within the Survey Area 20 Table 2: Criteria for Evaluating Special Status Species Potential for Occurrence (PFO) 22 Table 3: Summary of Acreages of Potential Jurisdictional Waters that Occur Within the Impact Areas of the Project Site 37
Table 4: MSHCP Covered Species not Adequately Conserved 45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity 2
Figure 2: Special Status Species Occurrences Within 5 Miles 8 Figure 3: Vegetation Communities 14
Figure 4: USDA Soils 27
Figure 5: Waters Databases 29
Figure 6: Watersheds 30
Figure 7: Groundwater Basins 31
Figure 8: FEMA Flood Hazard Zones 32
Figure 9: Jurisdictional Delineation Results 35
Figure 10: RCA Western Riverside County Criteria Area Cells 39 v
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
SECTION 1.0 — SUMMARY
This Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report has been completed by Chambers Group, Inc. (Chambers Group) to determine the potential for impacts to biological resources associated with construction of the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2 Project (Project). The Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) underground within the existing right-of-way (ROW); (1) along 6th Street from Chestnut Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue; (2) along Pennsylvania Avenue from 6th Street to East 1st Street; and (3) along East 1st Street from Pennsylvania Avenue to an existing earthen channel in the City of Beaumont (City). No physical changes to surface features are proposed. Throughout this report, Survey Area refers to the Project location as depicted in Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity. The Survey Area for the reconnaissance -level survey, vegetation mapping, and jurisdictional delineation includes all areas within the Project boundaries.
Chambers Group biologists Heather Madera, Austin Burke, and Alisa Muniz conducted a reconnaissance - level survey and jurisdictional delineation within the Survey Area to identify the potential for occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities, and habitats that could support special status wildlife species. All plant species, wildlife species, and vegetation communities observed within the Survey Area were recorded.
Developed and bare ground areas, as well as ten vegetation communities were documented within the Survey Area. No special status plants were observed within the Survey Area. No burrowing owls or active burrows with sign, such as cough pellets or whitewash, were observed within the Survey Area. Potential jurisdictional water features were observed throughout the Survey Area. The boundaries of the hydrological features were mapped and distinguished by the respective Agencies' jurisdiction, based on current Agency guidance documents.
1
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity
Project Location
Figure 1
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Project Location and Vicinity
C -F71'1 U UUIUS
N
p • Wyl1
Ventura
Los Angeles
umont
rr �ie�3�f3
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Orange
San
Bernardino
Project Location
Riverside
San Diego
Impend'
Noma 2.11 ..1 MOP Imo z M. CHAMBERS
P. D. iomrzoass 16 PIP.Mor pnos ^gym' GROUP
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
SECTION 2.0 — INTRODUCTION
Chambers Group was retained by EXP (Client) to conduct a literature review and reconnaissance -level biological resources survey and jurisdictional waters delineation ("survey," collectively) for the Project.
During the survey, biologists identified vegetation communities, potential for the occurrence of special status species or habitats that could support special status wildlife species, and recorded all plants and animals observed or detected within the Project boundary. This Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report has been prepared for the City to document that the Project is consistent with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The information presented in this document adheres to accepted scientific and technical standards that are consistent with the requirements of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The MSHCP Consistency Analysis requires project proponents to evaluate a project's adherence to the MSHCP and Implementing Agreement (IA) guidelines and requirements. The Project is located outside of the mapped Criteria Area and, as such, it is only required to comply with "Other Section 6.1.2 Species" discussed further in Section 5.8.6 of this report.
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AREA
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) has partnered with the City to provide funding for the design and construction of the Project. In July 1983, RCFCWCD developed an MDP for the Beaumont area (titled "Master Drainage Plan for the Beaumont Area Zone Five"). As discussed in the MDP, the City has experienced flooding over the years, and as undeveloped areas become urbanized, flooding damage is expected to increase. Therefore, the installation of drainage systems is required to safely convey stormwater runoff through the areas of concern with minimal interruption to public services. Particularly, the installation of a channel would eliminate flood concerns for properties between East 1st Street and Interstate 10 (I-10).
The approximately 33.18 -acre Project falls within the following APNs that may be affected by Project activities: 418-122-021, 418-123-003, 418-123-005, 418-123-011, 418-123-012, 418-160-006, 418-160- 007, 418-360-003, 418-770-007, 418-240-011, 418-250-009, 418-772-001, 418-630-011, 418-630-012, and 418-630-030. The construction of approximately 5,000 linear feet of underground RCP would begin at East 6th Street and Chestnut and terminate at East 1st Street and Berkshire Avenue where it would connect to an existing RCP that discharges out of an existing earthen channel immediately east of Berkshire Avenue. Manholes would be constructed for maintenance access at intervals of no more than 500 feet at the end of each line. Additional components to be installed include inlets and outlets to facilitate efficient entry and exit from the system. The RCP would feature grated openings to prevent the accumulation of debris.
The Project would include traffic control measures such as signs, barriers, and flaggers, to ensure safety and maintain vehicle and pedestrian access along the right-of-way. Best management practices (BMPs) would include basins and silt fences to address soil erosion and protect water quality during construction.
Existing water features, where present, would be abandoned in place and not filled in. The affected ROW would be restored after installation of the RCP. The RCP would be installed at a depth no greater than 25 feet to allow for future construction and improvements in the area. 3
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The City of Beaumont is located within northwestern Riverside County, bounded by Calimesa to the north/northwest, Banning to the east, and San Jacinto to the south. The Project consists of three segments as follows:
• East 6th Street between Chestnut Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue • Pennsylvania Avenue between East 6th Street and East 1st Street; and • East 1st Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and approximately 100 feet east of Berkshire Avenue.
Land uses around the Project consist of developed and undeveloped parcels and open space. Commercial properties line East 6th Street. Pennsylvania Avenue features commercial properties and open spaces, with I-10 and the Union Pacific Railroad on the north end. East 1st Street consists of open spaces, commercial properties, and single-family residences.
The Project is located in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Beaumont, California 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle. The elevation within the Survey Area ranges from 2,610 to 2,550 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The project location and vicinity are provided in Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity. 4
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
SECTION 3.0 — JURISDICTIONAL WATERS REGULATORY OVERVIEW The limits of jurisdictional waters regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW were delineated for the Survey Area. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into Waters of the United States (WoUS). The State of California (State) regulates discharge of material into waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7, §13000 et seq.). Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, 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.
On September 12, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of the Army signed a final rule repealing the 2015 Clean Water Rule ("2015 Rule") and re -codifying the regulatory text defining "Waters of the United States" that existed prior to the 2015 Rule. The new regulations went into effect on December 23, 2019. One of the proposed changes includes that ephemeral features, those that contain water only during or in response to rainfall, would no longer be considered "Waters of the United States" under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Separately, on August 28, 2019, the Office of Administrative Law approved the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to "Waters of the State". The procedures went into effect on May 28, 2020. Under the new regulations, the State Water Resources Control Board and its nine RWQCBs will assert jurisdiction over all existing "Waters of the United States", and all waters that would have been considered "Waters of the United States" under the 2015 Rule.
The EPA and USACE are in receipt of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona's August 30, 2021, order vacating and remanding the Navigable Waters Protection Rule in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On October 22, 2019, the EPA and USACE published a final rule to repeal the 2015 Rule. The final "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States— rule ("2023 Rule") became effective on March 20, 2023. Subsequently, the Conforming 2023 Rule considered Sackett v.
Environmental Protection Agency and its implications to the definition of WoUS. Therefore, the jurisdictional delineation conducted for this Project is consistent with the 2023 Conforming Rule and includes measurement of the Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM) to determine WoUS.
Evaluation of the State jurisdiction follows guidance from the same jurisdictional areas as USACE. In addition, the jurisdictional delineation Survey Area was reviewed for resources potentially regulated under the Porter -Cologne Act (i.e., isolated features).
CDFW regulates impacts or alterations to streambeds, including any obstruction or diversion to the natural flow of a stream, substantial change or use of material from a stream, or a deposit or disposal of any debris into a stream as part of Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-02. CDFW jurisdiction includes water features with a defined bed and bank. Features are delineated by measuring the outer width and length boundaries, consisting of either the top of bank (TOB) measurement or the extent of associated riparian or wetland vegetation (whichever is greater).
The Western Riverside County MSHCP requires that project sites be evaluated for a number of factors to assess how they meet MSHCP criteria. The jurisdictional delineation for the Project includes assessments for riparian/riverine areas (and associated species) and vernal pools (and associated species) pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2; urban/wildlands interface matters pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.4; and areas 5
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
under the jurisdiction of USACE and/or CDFW as discussed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. MSHCP riparian/riverine areas are defined as:
"those lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year" (RCA 2025a).
Further discussion of the regulatory framework is provided in Appendix A. 6
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
SECTION 4.0 — METHODS
4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION
Chambers Group biologists Heather Madera and Austin Burke originally conducted a literature review, reconnaissance -level survey, and jurisdictional delineation for the Project focusing on the ROW following the new RCP installation within the Survey Area on January 14, 2025. The Client later requested Chambers Group include the open lots located on the east side of Pennsylvania Ave, between East 1st Street and l-
10. Chambers Group biologists Austin Burke and Alisa Muniz conducted an updated reconnaissance -level survey and jurisdictional delineation for the new Survey Area on October 3, 2025. The methods used by Chambers Group are outlined below. The following geographies were evaluated in determining the potential for special status species to occur:
• Literature review for special status species occurrences: USGS quadrangles containing and surrounding the Survey Area and occurrences within a 5 -mile buffer around the Survey Area as shown in Figure 2
• Reconnaissance -level survey: Project location (Survey Area) as shown in Figure 1 • Jurisdictional delineation: Described in Section 5.7
• Vegetation mapping: Described in Section 5.2
4.1.1 Literature Review
Prior to performing the biological reconnaissance -level survey and jurisdictional delineation, existing documentation relevant to the Survey Area was reviewed. The most recent records of the California Natural Diversity Database managed by CDFW (CNDDB; CDFW 2025), the USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2024), the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2025a), the USGS's National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) blueline drainages (USGS 2025), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2025), and the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2025a) were reviewed for the following California USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangles containing and surrounding the Survey Area: Beaumont, Yucaipa, Forest Falls, San Gorgonio Mountain, El Casco, Cabazon, Lakeview, San Jacinto, and Lake Fulmor. These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federal- or state -listed threatened or endangered species or habitats that may occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Survey Area. In addition, the USFWS's Information for Planning and conservation (IPaC) site was searched for federally listed threatened and/or endangered species and critical habitat that could potentially be affected by the Project (USFWS 2025b). A map of special status species occurrences within 5 miles of the Survey Area is included as Figure 2. 7
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Figure 2: Special Status Species Occurrences Within 5 Miles alimesa C-ounty-Line -Rd
43 4�3
99 49
41� 4o
NO
414
414 414fs1 4144144a /
e 4 I? 414 &
NY m fig
N7 fflol oFfNFNT B ,P
Nll
gV
N4�0 4� fpm
fl7 27
�fl
41 4163
467
kp "th
9N
fi1gef17
s7
k30
fhl
43 j
4J
3 mi
40 4!J
49 9F
4 w g0
93 g5
9595 NO
oo
5 mi
47. Plummer's mariposa -lily
Animals
1. American badger
2. burrowing owl
3. California horned lark
4. coast homed lizard
5. coastal cactus wren
6. coastal California gnatcatcher
7. coastal whiptail
8. Cooper's hawk
9. Crotch's bumble bee
10. ferruginous hawk
11. golden eagle
12. least Bell's vireo
13. loggerhead shrike
14. Los Angeles pocket mouse
15. orange -throated whiptail
16. pallid bat
17. purple martin
18. red -diamond rattlesnake
19. Riverside fairy shrimp
20. San Bernardino kangaroo rat
21. San Diego desert woodrat
22. Southern California legless lizard
23. southern California rufous -crowned sparrow
24. southern grasshopper mouse
25. southern rubber boa
26. southwestern willow flycatcher
27. Stephens' kangaroo rat
28. Townsend's big -eared bat
29. tricolored blackbird
30. western spadefoot
31. westem yellow bat
32. yellow warbler
Plants
33. chaparral sand -verbena
34. Coachella Valley milk -vetch
35. Hom's milk -vetch
36. Jaeger's milk -vetch
37. mesa horkelia
38. Mojave tarplant
39. narrow -leaf sandpaper -plant
40. Parry's spineflower
41. Payson's jewelflower
42. smooth tarplant
43. Southem Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
44. Southem Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
45. spiny -hair blazing star
46. Yucaipa onion
Project Location
USFWS Occurrences
CNDDB Occurrences
Animals
Plants
0 0.75
1.5 Miles
3 Figure 2
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Special Status Species
Occurrences Within 5 Miles
Nam.215m ter; MDPL!!, 2 am — CHAMBERS
p.�m ter
wnrzo251amannnnor aano� GROUP
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
4.1.2 Biological Reconnaissance -level Survey
Chambers Group biologists Heather Madera and Austin Burke conducted the original biological reconnaissance -level survey within the ROW of the Survey Area to identify the potential for occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities, and habitats that could support special status wildlife species. The original survey was conducted on foot between 0800 and 1300 hours on January 14, 2025.
Austin Burke and Alisa Muniz conducted an updated reconnaissance -level survey within the entire Survey Area between 0630 and 1600 on October 3, 2025. Photographs of the Survey Area were taken to document conditions at the time of the survey and are provided in Appendix B — Photo Station Map and Site Photographs.
Vegetation
All plant species and vegetation communities observed within the Survey Area during the reconnaissance - level survey were recorded. Vegetation communities within the Survey Area were identified, qualitatively described, and mapped onto an aerial photograph. The vegetation communities are described following A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). A comprehensive list of the plant species observed during the surveys are provided in Appendix C.
Wildlife
During the surveys, all wildlife observed and/or detected and wildlife sign, including tracks, scat, carcasses, burrows, excavations, and vocalizations, were recorded. Additional survey time was spent in habitats most likely to support wildlife (trees were surveyed with binoculars for bird nests or avian activity) or in habitats with the potential to support federal- and/or state -listed or otherwise special status species. Notes were made on the general habitat types, species observed, and the conditions of the Survey Area. A comprehensive list of the wildlife species observed or detected during the surveys are provided in Appendix D.
Soils
Before conducting the survey, soil maps for Riverside County were referenced online to determine the types of soils found within the Survey Area. Soils were determined in accordance with categories set forth by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and by referencing the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2025).
Soils characteristics were assessed on site during the surveys.
4.2 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Chambers Group biologists Heather Madera, Austin Burke, and Alisa Muniz performed delineation of potential jurisdictional waters regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW within the Survey Area on January 14 and October 3, 2025. The regulatory agencies would determine whether these waters are jurisdictional upon review.
Climate and flow frequency were considered when observing watermarks and drift lines. For the purpose of determining hydrologic connectivity to a Traditional Navigable Water (TNW), aerial photos, NWI and NHD maps, and USGS quadrangle maps were reviewed; all features were inspected in the field on- and off -site for true connectivity. Potential USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional areas identified during 9
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
the literature search and aerial image analysis were field checked for the presence of definable channels, soils, wetland vegetation, riparian habitat, and hydrology. The biologists visually inspected all potential waters within the Survey Area to provide 100 percent coverage. Data was recorded for the presence or absence of fluvial activity, boundaries of geomorphic units, changes in plant species composition between different geomorphic units, soil types and textures, and mapping the watercourse and watercourse boundaries. Each of the hydrological features were examined in the field, and the channel banks were examined for signs of flow, terraces, drift deposits, and other indicators that would aid in determining the location and approximate measurement of the OHWM and bank to bank (B2B). Data was collected using a combination of records entered into ESRI ArcGIS Field Maps© and hand-written field notes.
Potential wetland habitats were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Wetland Manual; USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (version 2.0) (2008 Arid West Supplement; USACE 2008). The methods set forth in the 1987 Wetland Manual and the 2008 Arid West Supplement involve the delineation of wetlands based on the presence of three wetland parameters: a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. These wetland parameters are discussed in greater detail below.
Likewise, current CDFW procedures and guidance were used to identify and delineate any streambeds, rivers, or associated riparian habitat potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code and A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds (Vyverberg 2010).
Hydrophytic Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as "the sum total of macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content" (USACE 1987).
The biologists walked potential wetland areas within the Survey Area and noted any observations of hydrophytic vegetation. Areas supporting plant life potentially indicative of wetlands were evaluated in the field according to current USACE wetland delineation procedures described in the 1987 Wetland Manual (USACE 1987) and the 2008 Arid West Supplement (USACE 2008). The dominant and subdominant plant species present in the sample soil pits of these potential wetland areas were identified and their wetland indicator status was noted based on the current USACE National Wetland Plant List — Arid West Region (USACE 2022).
Hydric Soils
A hydric soil is a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (USACE 1987). Hydric soil indicators are formed predominantly by the accumulation or loss of iron, manganese, sulfur, or carbon compounds due to periods of anaerobic conditions in the soil (USACE 2008). The hydric soil criterion is considered satisfied at a location if, based upon the conclusions inferred from the field observations, a high groundwater table, evidence of prolonged soil saturation, or any indicators suggesting a long-term reducing environment in the upper 18 inches of the soil profile, are present. 10
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Potential hydric soils were investigated within the Survey Area. Sample soil pit locations were selected, and a hole was dug to a typical depth of 18 inches (unless prevented by some occluding material) or occasionally deeper to determine soil color, evidence of soil saturation, depth to shallow groundwater, and indicators of a reducing soil environment (e.g., redox concentrations or pore linings, gleyed soils, hydrogen sulfide odor). Soil matrix colors were classified using the Munsell Soil -Color Charts (Munsell Color 2009).
Wetland Hydrology
The presence of wetland hydrology indicators confirms that inundation or saturation has occurred on a site but may not provide information about the timing, duration, or frequency of the event. Hydrological features are generally the most ephemeral of the three wetland parameters (USACE 2008).
Hydrologic information for the site was obtained by reviewing USGS topographic maps and by directly observing hydrologic indicators in the field. The wetland hydrology criterion is considered satisfied at a location if, based upon the conclusions inferred from the field observations, an area has a high probability of being periodically inundated or has soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the surface soil environment, especially the root zone (USACE 1987). If at least one primary or two secondary indicators are found at a sample soil pit, the wetland hydrology criterion is considered satisfied.
4.3 MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats within Western Riverside County. The MSHCP is composed of five management units, which are broad areas for overall management of the MSHCP conservation areas. MSHCP conservation areas include land for the conservation of 146 covered species.
Reserve Assembly components include Criteria Cells (generally 160 acres in size each, used to organize and track conservation and development within the Criteria Areas), Criteria Areas (the mapped area of all Criteria Cells identified for potential conservation), Core Areas (a block of habitat within the reserve that provide resources to support species covered under the MSHCP), and Linkages (narrow habitat corridors that connect Core Areas, maintaining wildlife movement and genetic exchange), identified for species conservation (RCA 2025a).
Data obtained from the literature review and field surveys for the Project were reviewed to determine consistency with the MSHCP. The MSHCP Information Map was queried to determine requirements for habitat assessment(s), potential focused survey(s), or other issues related to biological resources that could exist within the Survey Area (RCA 2025b). The MSHCP Information Map was also used to identify any Covered Roads, Covered Public Access Activities (e.g., trails), and Public Quasi -Public Lands. Section
6.1.2 of the MSHCP requires that an assessment of the Survey Area be completed to identify any potential Project -related effects on biological resources, including riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, fairy shrimp, and riparian birds, if applicable. All Section 6.1.2 plant and wildlife species are also required to be assessed in the context of impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires an assessment of the site for narrow endemic plant species for sites located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area. Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP outlines additional survey needs and procedures for projects that fall within a mapped survey area for Criteria Area Plant Species, Amphibians, Burrowing Owl, Mammals, Delhi Sands flower -loving fly, Coastal California gnatcatcher, and Species Not Adequately Conserved. In addition, Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP requires that an Urban/Wildlands Interface analysis 11
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
be conducted to address the indirect effects associated with locating proposed development in the proximity of MSHCP Conservation Areas.
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
SECTION 5.0 - RESULTS
5.1 BIOLOGICAL RECONISSANCE-LEVEL SURVEY
Weather conditions during the original January 14, 2025, survey included temperatures ranging from 46 to 58 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with no cloud cover and no precipitation. Wind speeds ranged between 12 and 20 miles per hour (mph).
Weather conditions during the October 3, 2025, survey included temperatures ranging from 55 to 72 °F with 0 to 45 percent cloud cover and no precipitation. Wind speeds ranged between 0 and 3 mph.
5.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Ten vegetation communities were documented within the Survey Area: Annual Non-native Grassland, Upland Mustard and Star -thistle Field, Disturbed Goodding's Willow Woodland, Disturbed Perennial Buckwheat/Sand-aster Field, Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub, Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Woodland, Disturbed Palmer's Goldenbush Scrub, Giant Reed Marsh, Ruderal, and Ornamental Landscaping. In addition, two other land cover types were present in the Survey Area: Bare Ground and Developed.
The following sections summarize the principal characteristics of the vegetation communities and land cover types, including the general locations of these areas within the Survey Area. Total acreages for each habitat type are presented in Table 1, and mapped vegetation communities and land cover types within the Survey Area are depicted in Figure 3.
13
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Figure 3: Vegetation Communities
Vegetation Communities
1. Annual Non-native Grassland
2. Upland Mustard and Star -thistle Field
■ 3. Disturbed Goodding's Willow Woodland
AI 4. Disturbed Perennial Buckwheat / Sand -aster Field
5. Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub
g 6. Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Woodland
7. Disturbed Palmer's Goldenbush Scrub
8. Giant Reed Marsh
9. Ruderal
10. Ornamental Landscaping
■ 11. Developed
12. Bare Ground
0 Project Location
0 175 350 700
Feet
Figure 3
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Vegetation Communities
Pent Name 21501 BBeaumont
u nttM OP Li
2M. = — CHAMBERS
' Date 'y' �i/ ` GROUP
14
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.2.1 Annual Non-native Grassland
Annual Non-native Grassland is a semi -natural herbaceous community that is dominated by non-native grasses in the herbaceous layer with only scattered or emergent shrubs present at low cover. It can be found in all topographic settings in foothills, waste places, rangelands, or openings in woodlands (Sawyer et al. 2009). Soils are clays to sandy loams and the herbaceous layer is less than 4 feet high with open to continuous cover (Sawyer et al. 2009). This is a non-native vegetation community.
Annual Non-native Grassland covers approximately 3.55 acres of the Survey Area and was mapped mainly in the upland areas on both sides the drainages, though the community was potentially more extensive prior to the surrounding areas being disturbed. It appeared that much of the Survey Area had been recently mowed and/or disked resulting in large areas of Ruderal vegetation where the topography is flat.
Based on historical aerial imagery, these areas appear to be regularly mowed/maintained, presumably to reduce fire fuel load and mitigate fire risk to surrounding residential areas. Annual Non-native Grassland potentially covered more of the Survey Area prior to the disturbance. Native plant species found within the Survey Area as mapped within this vegetation community included slender woolly buckwheat (Eriogonum gracile), turkey -mullein (Croton setiger), miniature lupine (Lupinus bicolor), vinegar weed (Trichostema lanceolatum), jimson weed (Datura wrightii), and occasional small California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Non-native species included ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), foxtail brome (Bromus madritensis), wild oat (Avena fatua), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), yellow star -thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), erodium (Erodium sp.), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), and Russian -thistle (Salsola australis).
5.2.2 Upland Mustard and Star -thistle Field
Upland Mustard and Star -thistle Field is a non-native vegetation community consisting of dense stands of upland mustards and/or ecologically similar non-native forbs that overgrow and choke out other plants, both native and non-native. It can be found in fallow fields, rangelands, grasslands, roadsides, levee slopes, disturbed coastal scrub, riparian areas, cleared roadsides, and waste places (Sawyer et al. 2009).
The community responds positively to regular frequent disturbance, such as fire, disking, intermittent flooding, or heavy grazing and persists after disturbance (D'Antonio et al. 2007, Sawyer et al 2009). Species indicative of this vegetation community include black mustard (Brassica nigra), field mustard (Brassica rapa), shortpod mustard, Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), yellow star -thistle, wild radish (Raphanus sativus), tocalote, carnation spurge (Euphorbia terracina), and other similar ruderal forbs. Soils are clays to sandy loams and the herbaceous layer is less than 10 feet in height with open to continuous cover (Sawyer et al. 2009). Sparse emergent trees and shrubs may also be present. This is a non-native community.
Upland Mustard and Star -thistle Field vegetation covers approximately 2.08 acres of the Survey Area and occurs mainly within Drainages 1, 2, and 3, as well as along the margins of the drainages in the eastern and southern portions of the site. Shortpod mustard is the dominant or codominant species in this community within the Survey Area followed by yellow star -thistle. Non-native vegetation in this community was much denser within the drainages and flatter areas in the south, with higher proportions of yellow star -thistle. Patches of giant reed (Arundo donax) were present within this community in the southern portion of the site. Scattered native vegetation was also present in this community within the Survey Area including western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), fragrant everlasting (Pseudognaphalium 15
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
beneolens), Canada horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), sand -aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia), jimson weed, and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus). A single blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra subsp. caerulea) was observed within this community in the eastern portion of the site. The more southern portions of these drainages had much denser non-native vegetation and a higher proportion of yellow star -thistle compared to the central and northern sections which had denser shortpod mustard. Other non-native species found in this community within the Survey Area include Russian -thistle, ripgut grass, foxtail brome, wild oat, tocalote, and London rocket (Sisymbrium irio).
5.2.3 Disturbed Goodding's Willow Woodland
Goodding's Willow Woodland can be found on terraces along large rivers, canyons, along floodplains of streams, seeps, springs, ditches, lake edges, and low -gradient depositions (Sawyer et al. 2009). In this community, Goodding's willow (Salix gooddingii) may be dominant or codominant in the tree and/or shrub canopy with red willow (Salix laevigata), boxelder (Acer negundo), buckeye (Aesculus californica), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), or canyon live oak (Quercus chrysoplepis). Shrubs may include mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), American dogwood (Corpus sericea), narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), or California wild rose (Rosa californica). It forms an open to continuous canopy that is typically less than 100 feet in height. The shrub layer is sparse to continuous and the herbaceous layer is variable (Sawyer et al. 2009). The USACE National Wetland Plant List — Arid West Region (2022) recognizes Goodding's willow as a FACW (Facultative Wetland indicator species; i.e., it usually occurs in wetlands but may occur in non -wetlands) plant. Because the community was also composed of more than 25 percent non-native species in the herbaceous understory, this community has been classified as Disturbed.
Disturbed Goodding's Willow Woodland covers approximately 0.10 acre of the Survey Area located in the center of Drainage 2, north of where it converges with Drainage 3. The area was highly disturbed and filled with sediment as well as trash and debris. Native plant species found on the Survey Area typical of this vegetation community included Goodding's willow and western ragweed. Non-native species included giant reed, yellow star -thistle, ripgut grass, foxtail brome, and shortpod mustard.
5.2.4 Disturbed Perennial Buckwheat/Sand-aster Field
Perennial Buckwheat/Sand-aster Field vegetation is found on upland slopes, hills, or flats. Soils are sandy to loamy and can be derived from many substrates, including granitic, gabbro, sedimentary, and serpentinite (Sawyer et al. 2009). Membership rules for this community include having greater than 30 percent to 50 percent relative cover of longstem buckwheat (Eriogonum elongatum) as well as other herb species which can be codominant, including sand -aster, naked buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum), gum -plant (Grindelia camporum), and golden aster (Heterotheca sessiliflora; Sawyer et al. 2009, Buck -Diaz and Evens 2011, Kittel et al. 2012). Other commonly associated herbs in this community include ripgut grass, foxtail brome, sand mat (Cardionema ramosissimum), miniature lupine, and species in the genera Clarkia, Erodium, Gutierrezia, and Mentzelia. Shrubs may be present at low cover including coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), California buckwheat, or grape soda lupine (Lupinus excubitus). The herbaceous layer is less than 3 feet high with open to intermittent cover. Because the community was also composed of more than 25 percent non-native species in the herbaceous understory, this community has been classified as Disturbed.
16
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Disturbed Perennial Buckwheat/Sand-aster Field vegetation covers approximately 0.25 acre of the Survey Area located along Drainage 3 and where Drainage 3 meets Drainage 2. This area of the drainages is more open with longstem buckwheat and sand -aster dominating the banks with patches of western ragweed and sparse Canada horseweed and fragrant everlasting scattered throughout the area. Native plant species found on the Survey Area typical of this vegetation community included: longstem buckwheat, sand -aster, western ragweed, fragrant everlasting, Canada horseweed, and telegraph weed. Non-native species included: ripgut grass, foxtail brome, shortpod mustard, wild oat, and Russian -thistle.
5.2.5 Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub
California Buckwheat Scrub is found in upland slopes, intermittently flooded arroyos, channels and washes, and rarely flooded low -gradient deposits. Soils are coarse, well drained, and moderately acidic to slightly saline (Sawyer et al. 2009). Stands do well on rocky sites and in shallow soils, and they establish after disturbance by fire or flood or after heavy grazing. In southern coastal California, this alliance is usually one of the first of the coastal scrubs to establish in mechanically disturbed areas such as road cuts or slope failures, and it persists in areas with light to moderate grazing (Sawyer et al. 2009). In this vegetation community, California buckwheat or yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei) is dominant or co - dominant in the shrub canopy in cismontane stands with California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush, sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), brittlebush sunflower (Encelia califomica), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), white sage (Salvia apiana), or black sage (Salvia mellifera). The herbaceous layer is variable and may be grassy (Sawyer et al. 2009). Because the community was also composed of more than 25 percent non-native species in the herbaceous understory, this community has been classified as Disturbed.
Areas with Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub cover approximately 1.00 acre of the Survey Area located in patches along the edges of Drainages 1 and 2 as well as on the hillsides surrounding the culvert in Drainage 4. The patch located in the northern portion of Drainage 2 was more open with less non-native cover than the southern patches. Vegetation was generally sparser in this area and surrounded by Annual Non-native Grassland and Ruderal vegetation including foxtail brome and erodium. Areas within the channel were more open and contained sparse native forbs including western ragweed, vinegar weed, and telegraph weed. The small patch along the northern portion of Drainage 1 was located along the edges of a more deeply incised channel and included denser non-native cover including shortpod mustard, yellow star -thistle, and ripgut grass. The patch located in the southern portion of the site where Drainage 1 and Drainage 2 converge just north of East 1st Street contained denser California buckwheat surrounded by yellow star -thistle, shortpod mustard, and non-native grasses, as well as sparse Ruderal vegetation.
This portion of the drainage itself was also generally more open and contained more native cover including ragweed and rough cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium). The patch located in the southern portion of the site south of East 1st Street and surrounding Drainage 4 appears to be regularly maintained as a fuel reduction zone. The species located in this area were likely planted as an erosion -control buffer and appear to receive regular thinning and mowing. Native species observed in this area had a different composition than other areas of Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub within the Survey Area and included deerweed, white sage, black sage, coyote brush, and California sagebrush. Native plant species found on the Survey Area typical of this vegetation community included California buckwheat, sand -aster, miniature lupine, Canada horseweed, cudweed (Pseudognaphalium sp.), western ragweed, and telegraph weed. Non-native species included ripgut grass, foxtail brome, shortpod mustard, yellow star -thistle, wild oat, and Russian -thistle.
17
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.2.6 Disturbed Freemont Cottonwood Woodland
Fremont Cottonwood Woodland can be found on floodplains, along low -gradient rivers, perennial or seasonally intermittent streams, springs, in lower canyons in desert mountains, in alluvial fans, and in valleys with a dependable subsurface water supply that varies considerably during the year (Sawyer et al. 2009). Fremont cottonwood is dominant or codominant in the tree layer with boxelder, desert baccharis (Baccharis sergiloides), Arizona ash (Fraxinus velutina), western sycamore, narrowleaf willow, Goodding's willow, and/or arroyo willow (Salixlasiolepis), among others. It forms an open, intermittent, or continuous canopy of trees that is typically less than 85 feet in height. The shrub layer is intermittent to open and the herbaceous layer is variable. The USACE National Wetland Plant List —Arid West Region (2022) recognizes Fremont cottonwood as a FACW plant. Because the community was also composed of more than 25 percent non-native species in the herbaceous understory, this community has been classified as Disturbed.
Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Woodland vegetation covers approximately 0.16 acre of the Survey Area located in a small stand in the southern portion of Drainage 3 as well as in the area surrounding the culvert within Drainage 4. The small stand located in Drainage 3 contains patches of arroyo willow and giant reed with other non-native vegetation in the understory, and substantial amounts of trash and debris present.
The area surrounding the culvert within Drainage 4 contains more mule fat in the understory and is heavily disturbed with an excessive amount of sediment and debris from flooding events. It is surrounded by developed areas and the surrounding vegetation appears to be regularly maintained. Native plant species found in the Survey Area typical of this vegetation community included Fremont cottonwood, mule fat, western ragweed, mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), and rough cocklebur. Non-native species included giant reed, Russian -thistle, ripgut grass, foxtail brome, wild oat, shortpod mustard, and ribwort (Plantago major).
5.2.7 Disturbed Palmer's Goldenbush Scrub
Palmer's Goldenbush Scrub is dominated by Palmer's goldenbush (Ericameria palmeri var. pachylepis) in the shrub canopy with California buckwheat, California matchweed (Gutierrizia californica), and saw- toothed goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa) also common. Stands of this vegetation type usually occur within a larger matrix of annual grasslands (Sawyer et al. 2009). Shrubs are typically less than 5 feet, the canopy is open, and the herbaceous layer is continuous (Sawyer et al. 2009). Because the community was also composed of more than 25 percent non-native species in the herbaceous understory, this community has been classified as Disturbed.
Disturbed Palmer's Goldenbush Scrub covers approximately 0.26 acre of the Survey Area and is present in small patches along the edges of Drainages 1 and 3, primarily surrounded by non-native vegetation.
Native plant species found in the Survey Area typical of this vegetation community included Palmer's goldenbush, sand -aster, and one small patch of purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) in the center of Drainage 3. Non-native species found in the Survey Area typical of this vegetation community included foxtail brome, shortpod mustard, yellow star -thistle, tocalote, and ripgut grass.
5.2.8 Giant Reed Marsh
Giant Reed Marshes are found within riparian areas, along low -gradient streams and ditches, semi - permanently flooded and slightly brackish marshes, and impoundments (Sawyer et al. 2009). Giant reed is dominant in the herbaceous layer with common reed (Phragmites australis), western ragweed, yerba 18
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
mansa (Anemopsis califomica), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), rush (Juncus spp.), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), cattail (Typha spp.), or rough cocklebur. Emergent trees may be present at low cover, including Fremont cottonwood or willows. Emergent shrubs may be present, including salt marsh baccharis (Baccharis douglasii), mule fat, or button willow (Cephalanthus occidentalis). Giant reed is greater than 60 percent of the relative cover in the herbaceous and shrub layers (Evens and San 2005, Sproul et al. 2011, Buck -Diaz et al. 2012). Stands of giant reed choke riverbanks and stream channels, crowd out native plants, interfere with flood control, increase fire potential, and reduce wildlife habitat.
The cover is typically continuous. The USACE National Wetland Plant List — Arid West Region (2022) recognizes giant reed as a FACW plant. This is a non-native community.
Giant Reed Marsh vegetation covers approximately 0.15 acre of the Survey Area and is present within the center of Drainage. Native plant species found on the Survey Area typical of this vegetation community included western ragweed and telegraph weed. Non-native species found in the Survey Area typical of this vegetation community included giant reed, ripgut grass, foxtail brome, and Russian -thistle.
5.2.9 Ruderal
Areas classified as Ruderal tend to be dominated by pioneering herbaceous species that readily colonize disturbed ground and that are typically found in temporary, often frequently disturbed habitats (Barbour et al. 1999). The soils in Ruderal areas are typically characterized as heavily compacted or frequently disturbed. The vegetation in these areas are adapted to living in compact soils where water does not readily penetrate the soil. Often, Ruderal areas are dominated by species of the Centaurea, Brassica, Malva, Salsola, Eremocarpus, Amaranthus, and Atriplex genera.
Areas with Ruderal vegetation cover approximately 14.59 acres of the Survey Area within recently mowed and disturbed areas throughout the eastern portion of the Survey Area, the vacant lot in the northern portion of the Survey Area, the disturbed areas surrounded the Union Pacific Railroad in the northern portion of the Survey Area, and on either side of the sidewalks located along Pennsylvania Avenue and East 1st Street. Ruderal vegetation was also present within outlet of a small culvert in the northern portion of the Survey Area. This area contained small and stunted regrowth of Goodding's willow, tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis), and cattail. Non-native plant species found on the Survey Area typical of this vegetation community included shortpod mustard, Russian -thistle, ripgut grass, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), occasional stands of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), tocalote, foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), London rocket, and yellow star -thistle. Native plant species found in the Survey Area typical of this vegetation community included sparse and scattered turkey -mullein, telegraph weed, and jimson weed.
5.2.10 Ornamental Landscaping
Ornamental Landscaping includes areas where the vegetation is dominated by non-native horticultural plants (Gray and Bramlet 1992). Typically, the species composition consists of introduced trees, shrubs, flowers, and turf grass.
Ornamental Landscaping covers approximately 0.24 acre of the Survey Area. These areas include the middle of East 1st Street and along a small portion of sidewalk in the southern portion of the Survey Area, as well as in the northern portion of the Survey Area along the south side of I-10. Plant species found within the Survey Area typical of this community include star jasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides), Indian hawthorn (Rhaphiolepis indica), gum tree (Eucalyptus sp.), and ornamental pine (Pinus sp.). 19
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.2.11 Developed
Developed areas are areas that have been altered by humans and now display man-made structures such as houses, paved or gravel roads, buildings, parks, and other maintained areas.
Developed areas cover approximately 9.49 acres of the site and provide virtually no habitat for wildlife species. These areas include the paved roads and sidewalks along East 1st Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, and East 6th Street, the Union Pacific Railroad and surrounding gravel roads in the northern portion of the Survey Area, concrete culverts located throughout the Survey Area, and the newly constructed East 2nd Street and its associated culverts.
5.2.12 Bare Ground
Bare ground areas are generally devoid of vegetation but do not contain any form of pavement or developed structures. Bare ground is present in the vacant lot located in the northern portion of the Survey Area on the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue. Bare ground covers approximately 1.32 acres of the Survey Area.
Table 1 below summarizes the vegetation communities and other land cover types within the Survey Area and the acreage of each land type.
Table 1: Vegetation Communities within the Survey Area
ID
Vegetation Community
Acres
1 Annual Non-native Grassland
3.55 2
Upland Mustard and Star -thistle Field
2.08 3
Disturbed Goodding's Willow Woodland
0.10 4
Disturbed Perennial Buckwheat/Sand-aster Field
0.25 5
Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub
1.00 6
Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Woodland
0.16 7
Disturbed Palmer's Goldenbush Scrub
0.26 8
Giant Reed Marsh
0.15 9
Ruderal
14.59 10
Ornamental Landscaping
0.24 11
Developed
9.49 12
Bare Ground
1.32 3
3348
5.3 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
The following information is a list of abbreviations used to help determine the significance of biological special status resources potentially occurring within the Survey Area. With the exception of MSHCP Covered Species that have a CRPR of 3 or 4, plants with a CRPR of 3 or 4 were not included in the analysis as they are not afforded protections under CEQA.
20
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
1A = Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2A = Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere. 2B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere in their range.
3 = Plants about which more information is needed.
4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.
CRPR Extensions
0.1 = Seriously endangered in California (greater than 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat).
0.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened).
0.3 = Not very endangered in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened).
Federal
FE = Federally listed; Endangered
FT = Federally listed; Threatened
State
ST = State listed; Threatened
SE = State listed; Endangered
RARE = State -listed; Rare (Listed "Rare" animals have been re -designated as Threatened, but Rare plants have retained the Rare designation.)
SSC = California Species of Special Concern
FP = Fully Protected
WL = Watchlist
County
CS
MSHCP Covered Species
The following information was used to determine the significance of biological resources potentially occurring within the Survey Area. The criteria used to evaluate the potential for special status species to occur in the Survey Area are outlined in Table 2.
21
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Table 2: Criteria for Evaluating Special Status Species Potential for Occurrence (PFO)
Absent:
Species is restricted to habitats or environmental conditions that do not occur within the Survey Area.
Low:
Historical records for this species do not exist within the immediate vicinity (approximately 5 miles) of the Survey Area, and/or habitats or environmental conditions needed to support the species are of poor quality.
Moderate:
Either a historical record exists of the species within the immediate vicinity of the Survey Area (approximately 3 miles) and marginal habitat exists in the Survey Area, or the habitat requirements or environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the Survey Area, but no historical records exist within 5 miles of the Survey Area.
High:
Both a historical record exists of the species within the Survey Area or its immediate vicinity (approximately 1 mile), and the habitat requirements and environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the Survey Area.
Present:
Species was detected within the Survey Area at the time of the survey. * PFO: Potential for Occurrence
5.3.1 Special Status Plants
Current database searches (CDFW 2025, CNPS 2025a, USFWS 2024) resulted in a list of 69 federal- and/or state -listed threatened and endangered or otherwise special status plant species documented to occur within the vicinity of the Survey Area. After the literature review and assessment of the various habitat types in the Survey Area and vicinity, it was determined that 64 species are absent from the Survey Area and 5 species have a low potential for occurrence within the Survey Area. Factors used to determine the potential for occurrence included the quality of habitat, elevation, soil type, and the results of the reconnaissance -level survey. In addition, the location of prior CNDDB records of occurrence was used as additional data, but because the CNDDB is a positive -sighting database, these data were used only in support of the analysis from the previously identified factors. Additional species not identified in the CNDDB and USFWS databases may require analysis for future studies.
The following 54 plant species are considered absent from the Survey Area due to lack of suitable habitat, the species are found outside of the elevational range within the Survey Area, and/or the species would have been conspicuous if it was present within the Survey Area:
• Cienega Seca oxytheca (Acanthoscyphus parishii var. cienegensis) — CRPR 1B.3 • white -margined everlasting (Antennaria marginata) — CRPR 2B.3 • Southern California galium broomrape (Aphyllon epigalium ssp. notocalifornicum) — CRPR 1B.3 • rock sandwort (Arenaria lanuginosa var. saxosa) — CRPR 2B.3 • San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) — FE, CRPR 1B.1, CS • Parish's brittlescale (Atriplex parishii) — CRPR 1B.1, CS • Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii) — CRPR 1B.2, CS • Parish's rockcress (Boechera parishii) — CRPR 1B.2
• San Bernardino rockcress (Boechera peirsonii) — CRPR 1B.2 22