Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
• scalloped moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) — CRPR 2B.2 • Palmer's mariposa -lily (Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri) — CRPR 1.B2 ■ San Bernardino Mountains owl's -clover (Castilleja lasiorhyncha) — CRPR 1B.2 ■ Payson's jewelflower (Caulanthus simulans) — CRPR 4.2, CS ■ peninsular spine flower (Chorizanthe leptotheca) — CRPR 4.2, CS ■ white-bracted spineflower (Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca) — CRPR 1B.2 ■ Cleveland's bush monkeyflower (Diplacus clevelandii) — CRPR 4.2, CS ■ southern alpine buckwheat (Eriogonum kennedyi var. alpigenum) — CRPR 1B.3 ■ San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw (Galium angustifolium ssp. jacinticum) — CRPR 1.B3, CS ■ Alvin meadow bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp. primum) — CRPR 1.B2, CS • Fremont's gentian (Gentiana fremontii) — CRPR 2B.3
• San Bernardino gilia (Gilia leptantha ssp. leptantha) — CRPR 1B.3 • Parish's alumroot (Heuchera parishii) — CRPR 1B.3
• vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens) — CRPR 3.2, CS
• beautiful hulsea (Hulsea vestita ssp. callicarpha) — CRPR 4.2, CS • pygmy hulsea (Hulsea vestita ssp. pygmaea) — CRPR 1B.3 • California satintail (Imperata brevifolia) — CRPR 2B.1 • California black oak (Juglans californica var. californica) — CRPR 4.2, CS • Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) — CRPR 1B.1, CS • ocellated Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum) — CRPR 4.2, CS ■ lemon lily (Lilium parryi) — CRPR 1B.2, CS
■ white bog adder's -mouth (Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda) — CRPR 2B.1 ■ Hall's monardella (Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii) — CRPR 1B.3, CS ■ San Felipe monardella (Monardella nano ssp. leptosiphon) — CRPR 1B.2 • California muhly (Muhlenbergia californica)— CRPR 4.3, CS • little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. apus) — CRPR 3.1, CS • mud nama (Nama stenocarpa) — CRPR 2B.2, CS
• spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) — FT, CRPR 1B.1, CS • woolly mountain -parsley (Oreonana vestita) — CRPR 1B.3 • rock -loving oxytrope (Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila) — CRPR 2B.3 ■ San Bernardino grass -of -Parnassus (Parnassia cirrata var. cirrata) — CRPR 1B.3 ■ white rabbit -tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum) — CRPR 2B.2 ■ Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii) — CRPR 4.2, CS
■ Latimer's woodland-gilia (Saltugilia Iatimeri) — CRPR 1B.2 ■ Parish's checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. parishii) — CRPR 1B.2 ■ Bear Valley checkerbloom (Sidalcea malviflora ssp. dolosa) — CRPR 1B.2 ■ salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana) — CRPR 2B.2 • chickweed oxytheca (Sidotheca [Oxytheca] caryophylloides) — CRPR 4.3, CS ■ Krantz's catchfly (Silene krantzii) — CRPR 1B.2
■ fringed chocolate chip lichen (Solorina spongiosa) — CRPR 2B.2 ■ southern jewelflower (Streptanthus campestris) — CRPR 1B.3 ■ San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) — CRPR 1B.2 ■ California dandelion (Taraxacum californicum)— FE, CRPR 1B.1 ■ California screw -moss (Tortula californica) — CRPR 1B.2 ■ Wright's trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii) — CRPR 2B.1, CS
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
The following 10 plant species are considered absent from the survey area because although there have been recorded historical observations within 5 miles of the Survey Area, these records are greater than 100 years old and the populations are presumed to be extirpated, and/or there is no suitable habitat present within the Survey Area:
■ chaparral sand -verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita) — CRPR 1B.1 ■ Yucaipa onion (A/lium marvinii) — CRPR 1B.2, CS
■ Horn's milk -vetch (Astragalus hornii var. hornii) — CRPR 1B.1 ■ Coachella Valley milk -vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) — FE, CRPR 1B.2 ■ Plummer's mariposa -lily (Calochortus plummerae) — CRPR 4.2, CS • Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) — CRPR 1B.1, CS • Mojave tarplant (Deinandra mohavensis) — SE, CRPR 1B.3, CS • Mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula) — CRPR 16.1 • spiny -hair blazing star (Mentzelia tricuspis) — CRPR 2B.1 • narrow -leaf sandpaper -plant (Petalonyx linearis) — CRPR 2B.3 The following five plant species have a low potential to occur in the Survey Area because there have recorded historical observations within 5 miles of the Survey Area and/or marginal habitat is present within the Survey Area, but all suitable habitat is heavily disturbed and of poor quality:
■ Jaeger's milk -vetch (Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri) — CRPR 1B.1, CS ■ thread -leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) — FT, SE, CRPR 1B.1, CS ■ smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) — CRPR 1B.1, CS ■ slender -horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) — FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1, CS ■ Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum) — FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1, CS Although small patches of suitable habitat that contain exposed sandy wash are present in Drainages 2 and 3, these areas were heavily disturbed and of poor quality. These areas are filled with sediment and debris from stormwater runoff and sheet flow from the surrounding urban and disturbed areas and have high non-native species cover (e.g., foxtail brome, shortpod mustard). Habitat surrounding the Survey Area consists of developed areas and non-native grassland and is unsuitable for any of these species.
5.3.2 Special Status Wildlife
Current database searches (CDFW 2025, USFWS 2024) resulted in a list of 32 federal- and/or state -listed endangered or threatened, California Species of Special Concern (SSC), or otherwise special status wildlife species that may potentially occur within the Survey Area. After a literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types, 18 special status wildlife species were determined to be absent, and 14 species were determined to have a low potential to occur within the Survey Area. Factors used to determine potential for occurrence included the quality of habitat and the proximity of CNDDB records of occurrence to the Survey Area.
The following 18 wildlife species are considered absent from the Survey Area due to lack of suitable habitat present within the site:
• American badger (Taxidea taxus) — SSC
• coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) — SSC, CS • coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) — FT, SSC, CS 24
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
■ ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) — WL, CS
■ golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) — FP, CS
■ loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) — SSC, CS
■ pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) — SSC
■ red -diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) — SSC, CS
■ Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) — FE, CS ■ San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma Iepida intermedia) — SSC, CS ■ southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) — WL, CS ■ southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona) — SSC ■ southern rubber boa (Charina umbratica) — ST, CS
■ southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) — FE, SE, CS ■ Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) — SSC ■ tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) — ST, SSC, CS ■ western spadefoot (Spec hammondii) — Proposed FT, SSC, CS • western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) — SSC
The following 14 species were determined to have a low potential to occur within the Survey Area due to low -quality habitat present within the site and recent occurrences within 5 miles:
• burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) — Candidate SE, SSC, CS • California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) — WL, CS • coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) — SSC, CS • coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) — SSC, CS • Cooper's hawk (Astur cooperii) — WL, CS
• Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) — Candidate SE
• Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) — SSC, CS • least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) — FE, SE, CS • orange -throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) — WL, CS • purple martin (Progne subis) — SSC, CS
• San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) — FE, SE, SSC, CS • Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) — SSC • Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) — FT, ST, CS ■ yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) — SSC, CS
5.4 GENERAL PLANTS
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 complete list of plant species observed is provided in Appendix C.
5.5 GENERAL WILDLIFE
A total of 15 wildlife species were observed during the survey. Wildlife species observed or detected during the survey were characteristic of the existing Survey Area conditions. No special status species and no sign were observed during the survey effort. A complete list of wildlife species observed is provided in Appendix D.
25
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.6 SOILS
After referencing the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2025), it was determined that the Survey Area is located within the Western Riverside Area CA679 (Figure 4: USDA Soils). The results of the database search show four soil types mapped within the Survey Area:
• Ramona sandy loam (RaB2), 2 to 5 percent slopes, occurs throughout the northern portion of the Survey Area. They are well drained soils typically found in linear positions at elevations from 250 to 3,500 feet amsl. The soil profiles are composed of sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, and gravelly sandy loam derived from granite. These soils are not classified as hydric and typically have moderately high permeability. They produce very low runoff due to the linear shape. The soil is more than 80 inches to bedrock (USDA 2025). • Ramona sandy loam (RaB3), 0 to 5 percent slopes, occurs along the eastern border of the Survey Area. They are well drained soils typically found in linear positions at elevations from 250 to 3,500 feet amsl. The soil profiles are composed of sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, gravelly sandy loam, derived from granite. These soils are not classified as hydric and typically have a moderately high permeability and medium runoff. The soil is more than 80 inches to bedrock (USDA 2025).
• Ramona sandy loam (RaC3), 5 to 8 percent slopes, occurs throughout the center of the Survey Area. They are well drained soils typically found in linear positions at elevations from 250 to 3,500 feet amsl. The soil profiles are composed of sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam, gravelly sandy loam derived from granite. These soils are not classified as hydric and typically have a moderately high permeability; however, the percent slope results in a high runoff class. The soil is more than 80 inches to bedrock (USDA 2025).
• Terrace escarpments (TeG), occurs within the drainage features that cut through the open space on the north and south of East 1st street. They are steep, step -like slopes or cliffs created through a process of erosion on a river terrace. These soils are typically found in concave positions and their parent material is alluvium derived from mixed sources. These soils are not classified as hydric (USDA 2025).
26
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Figure 4: USDA Soils
GyC2
RaB2
Project Location
Figure 4
Beaumont MDP Line 2
USDA Soils
•
SmE2
RaB2
0 350 700
1,400
Feet
USDA Soils
▪ GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes, eroded
RaB2 - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes, eroded
▪ RaB3 - Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5
percent slopes, severely eroded
RaC2 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8
percent slopes, eroded
RaC3 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8
percent slopes, severely eroded
RaD2 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, eroded
▪ RaD3 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, severely eroded
RdD2 - Ramona sandy loam,
moderately deep, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, eroded
ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0
▪ to 8 percent slopes, eroded
RfC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam,
IMmoderately deep, 0 to 8 percent slopes.
eroded
SmE2 - San Tlmoteo loam, 8 to 25
percent slopes, eroded
▪ SmF2 - San Timoteo loam, 25 to 50
percent slopes, eroded
TeG - Terrace escarpments
GyC2
111'.
Name. 21501 Beaumont Nwr Una 2 wa = CHAMBERS
l oan: 1021/2025516MAO. Karim 211" GROUP
27
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.7 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS
The Survey Area is located within the Potrero Creek Watershed and contains primarily disturbed upland and disturbed riparian vegetation. Although there was no flowing water at the time of the survey and soils are not hydric, the drainages that run through the open space on both the north and south side of East 1st Street may be subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted and potential WoUS and waters of the State are described below.
5.7.1 Hydrology and Connectivity
As identified during the literature search, a feature mapped in the NWI as an intermittent riverine drainage (USFWS 2025a) originates at the southern end of the Survey Area as shown in Figure 5: Waters Databases. Three other NHD mapped ephemeral drainages run through the center of the site and feed into the riverine feature (USGS 2025). The Survey Area is located within the Potrero Creek Watershed (HUC 12- 180702020201) of the Upper Santa Ana Valley groundwater basin (USDA 2025) in Riverside County, California (Figure 6: Watersheds). The Potrero Creek Watershed in Beaumont is bordered to the north by the San Bernardino Mountains to the south by the San Jacinto Mountains, to the west by the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Mountains, and to the east by the Little San Bernardino Mountains. Potrero Creek flows south-southwest for 5 miles until it joins the San Jacinto River near California State Route 79, which ultimately drains into Lake Elsinore. The headwaters of the San Jacinto River are in the San Bernardino Mountains. The riverine feature within the Survey Area flows into Potrero Creek.
The groundwater basin containing the Survey Area (i.e., Upper Santa Ana Valley) is shown in Figure 7:
Groundwater Basins. Flood zones identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are shown in Figure 8: FEMA Flood Hazard Zones. A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) runs through the Survey Area. The SFHA 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). 28
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Figure 5: Waters Databases
C./tip
toe
rD
>
E
any p0OMIlaM
co
a m
> c
n
a
en
v
w m
San Gor90
E
a
0/0 pass
E 13th St
E 12th St
E 11th St
E 10th 5t
o E 9th St
c
rn
Beaumont 2
z
0 0
79 W 1st St
Project Location
NHD NWI
— Connector MEN Freshwater Pond
CanalDitch Riverine
StreamRiver
— ArtificialPath
E 5th St
any Inulsay)
E 3rd St
E 1st St
Michigan Ave
Oak Vail
any eluenliCsuuad
Figure 5
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Waters Databases
E 8th St
E 6th St
0 800 1,600 3,200
Feet
N ormE 21501 eeeumom MOP Um z CHAMBERS
Pant U C 1D212D255: 1a PM ALM.: maw. 4 ' (WOE In
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Figure 6: Watersheds
aIrsirtP A
Oak Valley Golf
Club
180702030401
Little San
Gorgonio Creek
W 4th St
2853 ft
180702020202
Laborde Canyon -San
Jacinto River
>
m
a
w 4
d
Beaumont
E 13th St
E 12th St
E 9th St >
L9
9 C gar Way
Oak Valley Pkwy
E 8th St
6th St
E 6th St
ountry CI
E 1st St
188702020201
Potrero Creek
any s6uiids pueIy6IH 5
181002010101
Smith Creek
San
Go,-9on/o p1
un Lakes
e�G
o•
Sun Lakes
ountry Clul:,
1/4
Q Project Location
Q Watershed (HUC-12)
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Figure 6
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Watersheds
Name 21501 ...or., L.ne ura2 CHAMBERS
vnm 0.r.. 10/21.25515 PMAu1Mr Manus ill`' (cP..OUP
30
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Figure 7: Groundwater Basins
MM
ookside Ave
r'
Oak Valley Golf
Club
UPPER SANTA
ANA VALLEY
COACHELLA
VALLEY
Y
D^
E 9th St n
Beaumont
E 8th St
E 6th S
Sun Lakes
Country Ch:
O/,
0 Project Location
Groundwater Basin
N
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
Figure 7
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Groundwater Basins
Name 21501 Beaumont MDP Lulea wa ` =CHAMBERS
Pent Dale: larzvzozs SIBPnnwmor: aced" ill GROUP
31
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Figure 8: FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
Figure 8
Beaumont MDP Line 2
FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
Project Location
FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
0 250 500
1,000
Feet
Neme. 215BIBeeumantMOPLne2 = CHAMBERS
PnmDt ll1212O2B 1lzenMAMar. pcenos '"il�`� GROUP
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.7.2 Delineated Waters
Based on the NWI and NHD database search, a mapped blue -line riverine feature (NWI) originates in the southern end of the Survey Area and three other ephemeral drainage features (NHD) run through the Survey Area (Figure 5: Waters Databases). The field delineation confirmed the presence of these drainages. The location of these features delineated within the Survey Area following the field investigations are shown in Figure 9: Jurisdictional Delineation Results. A total of 3,739 linear feet of ephemeral drainages and 133 linear feet of a riverine feature were mapped within the Survey Area.
Surface hydrology from stormwater runoff and nuisance water enters the Survey Area in four locations surrounding the open lot east of Pennsylvania Avenue and south of I-10. Three drainages located east of Pennsylvania Avenue merge into the mapped riverine feature that begins on the south side of East 1st Street. The riverine feature crosses under East 1st Street through an 8 -foot -wide, concrete -lined, culvert and continues above ground for approximately 105 feet until it exits the Survey Area. The feature continues to flow for approximately 0.65 mile until emptying into Potrero Creek, where it then continues flowing south-southwest eventually terminating in the San Jacinto River, a TNW. A detention basin located south of East 1st Street, east of the mapped riverine feature, was also observed during the survey. The drainages and detention basin within the Survey Area may be subject to USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdiction. The drainages and detention basin are described below and data recorded for these features within the Survey Area are presented in Table 3. Completed OHWM and wetland delineation forms representative of the water features identified are provided in Appendix E. Reference photographs were taken during this survey and are included in Appendix B.
Drainage 1 is a deeply incised gully and conveys surface flow primarily from stormwater runoff entering through a culvert on the west and east side of Pennsylvania Avenue (Appendix B — Photos 22 through 25).
The open lot on the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue is flat ground with ruderal vegetation. The culvert on the west side receives stormwater runoff and sheet flow during rain events. The NHD mapped ephemeral drainage no longer has connectivity to East 3rd Street; however, stormwater runoff and nuisance water from East 3rd Street seems to enter the site through an underground culvert that empties into Drainage 2 and is described in greater detail below. Drainage 1 begins on the east side of Pennsylvania Avenue and flows, above ground, for approximately 122 feet before passing through a culvert beneath the newly constructed East 2nd Street. Downstream of this crossing, the drainage continues for approximately 510 feet before joining Drainage 2. Although there was no water present during the field survey, indicators of hydrology were present at the time of the field delineation. Hydrological characteristics within the drainage included a break in the bank slope, wracking, and mud cracks. The limits of the OHWM were delineated visually by a change in break in slope and change of vegetation within the drainage. The Drainage 1 OHWM measured approximately 6.4 feet wide, and the B2B measured approximately 18.9 feet wide, both narrowing as they approached the riverine feature downstream. The depth of the feature, from the bed of the channel to the top of the bank, is approximately 20 feet.
Hydrophytic vegetation was absent and soils throughout the drainage primarily consisted of coarse sandy loams, consistent with the soils found in all drainages within the Survey Area.
Drainage 2 is a deeply incised gully and conveys surface hydrology primarily from stormwater runoff and nuisance water originating from the Union Pacific Railroad and the residential area north of I-10. Flows are conveyed through multiple culverts surrounding the railroad and continue above ground in a southeast direction for approximately 1,795 feet before joining the NWI mapped riverine feature on the south side of East 1st Street (Appendix B — Photos 26 through 45). Stormwater runoff and nuisance water also seems to enter the drainage from a large, 3.5 -foot, concrete culvert that runs underground from East 3rd Street. This feature also runs under the newly constructed, East 2nd Street, similar to Drainage 1. 33
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Hydrological characteristics within the drainage included a break in the bank slope, wracking, and mud cracks. The limits of the OHWM were delineated visually by a change in break in slope and change of vegetation within the drainage. The OHWM measured approximately 9.7 feet wide, and the B2B measured approximately 19.9 feet wide, both narrowing as they approached the riverine feature downstream. The depth of the feature, from the bed of the channel to the top of the bank, is approximately 28 feet. A couple patches of riparian vegetation were present within Drainage 2; however, the composition and density did not meet the threshold for hydrophytic vegetation to be considered a wetland. Soils within the drainage consisted of 7.5 YR 6/4, 7.5 YR 5/6, and 7.5 YR 4/6 fine to coarse sandy foams which the USDA considers non-hydric soils.
Drainage 3 is a deeply incised gully and conveys surface hydrology primarily from stormwater runoff and sheet flow originating from the Union Pacific Railroad and open space area in the north and northeast portions of the Survey Area (Appendix B — Photos 46 and 47). These flows channelize outside of the Survey Area and flow south until it enters the northeastern portion of the site. This feature flows approximately 302 feet through the Survey Area before joining Drainage 2. Hydrological characteristics within the drainage included a break in the bank slope, wracking, and mud cracks. The limits of the OHWM were delineated visually by a change in break in slope and change of vegetation within the drainage. The OHWM measured approximately 5.3 feet wide and the B2B measured approximately 35.8 feet wide. The depth of the feature, from the bed of the channel to the top of the bank, is approximately 23 feet. Hydrophytic vegetation was absent and soils throughout the drainage primarily consisted of coarse sandy foams, consistent with the soils in all drainages within the Survey Area.
Drainage 4 represents the combined downstream flow of Drainages 1 through 3. This feature conveys surface hydrology resulting from stormwater runoff and nuisance water from the surrounding residential neighborhood. The feature flows underneath East 1st Street through a concrete culvert and continues above ground for approximately 105 feet before exiting the Survey Area (Appendix B — Photos 11 through 21). Hydrological characteristics within the drainage included a break in the bank slope, mud cracks, exposed roots, and vegetation matted down or bent. The limits of the OHWM were delineated visually by change in break in slope and change of vegetation within the drainage. The OHWM measured approximately 21 feet wide and the B2B measured approximately 106 feet wide, both narrowing as they approached and exited the Project boundary downstream. Hydrophytic vegetation was present within and downstream of the Survey Area; however, soils consisted of 7.5 YR 6/4, 7.5 YR 5/4, and 7.5 YR 4/6 fine to coarse sandy foams which the USDA considers non-hydric soils.
The detention basin is partially located within the Survey Area, south of East 1st Street and collects stormwater runoff and nuisance water from the surrounding residential neighborhood (Appendix B — Photo 12). The detention basin conveys water through a 3 -foot outlet tower as well as an open, concrete - lined overflow drain during extreme flood conditions. The basin does not contain clear hydrological characteristics, nor does it contain the hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soils required to be considered a wetland.
A raised concrete -lined sewer manhole collecting runoff from the off -ramp at Pennsylvania Avenue off westbound I-10 is not located within the project impact boundary, but is within the survey area. The structure is entirely developed and is part of the established sewer system (Appendix B — Photos 4-5).
Directly across Pennsylvania Avenue, there is an additional sewer grate collecting runoff from the opposite side of the street (Appendix B — Photo 6). These structures are not jurisdictional to the regulatory agencies; however, they may carry stormwater runoff and nuisance flows that contribute to Drainage 2. 34
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Figure 9: Jurisdictional Delineation Results
LJ Project Loc_- _ G..,•:ert
• Formal Soi =r.
Ord,nary H,gh Water Mark
Bank :c Bank
Figure 9
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Junsdictional Delineation Results
35
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.7.3 CDFW/MSHCP Riparian Habitat
No NWI-mapped wetlands were identified within the Survey Area. However, Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Woodland, Disturbed Goodding's Willow Woodland, and Giant Reed Marsh vegetation communities occur within small portions of the Survey Area along Drainages 2 and 3, located north of East 1st Street. A small stand of Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Woodland is also present south and downstream of East 1st Street, just outside of the culvert. These areas are heavily disturbed with a buildup of sediment and debris. The vegetation in the area consists of native Fremont cottonwood, Goodding's willow, mule fat, and arroyo willow, and exotic species including giant reed. Several soil pits were dug during the surveys. No hydric soils were observed within the Project boundary. Soils identified within the Survey Area include Ramona Sandy Loams which do not have hydric characteristics (USDA 2025). Evidence of hydrology was observed throughout the Survey Area, and hydrophytic vegetation was present south of East 1st Street. The presence of hydrologic indicators and hydrophytic vegetation without the presence of hydric soils confirms that inundation or saturation has occurred but is not frequent enough to support a wetland community; only two of the three wetland parameters were met (USACE 2008).
Because Riparian vegetation occurs within the channels, the drainages meet the MSHCP definition of Riparian/Riverine. While the drainages do connect to Potrero Creek and eventually to the San Jacinto River with portions of Potrero Creek passing through MSHCP Criterial Cells, the Survey Area is approximately
1.8 miles from the MSHCP Potrero Covered Lands to the south, and several miles north of San Jacinto River. The drainages that fall within the Survey Area and the vegetation within the Project boundary are of low quality. 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. In addition, the riparian vegetation that occurs within the drainage onsite lacks the mature trees and dense vegetation required by the species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and western yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) were not observed during the survey and they are not expected to occur within the Survey Area.
Because the Survey Area contains evidence of hydrology and riparian vegetation, this area would be considered under CDFW jurisdiction and an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine area.
5.7.4 Summary of Jurisdictional Findings
The Survey Area contains three ephemeral drainages and one 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 and physical surface features in place to avoid and minimize impacts by Project activities; these features will not be filled in. If these areas are affected by Project activities, they may be subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. The results of this jurisdictional delineation document the investigation, best professional judgement, and conclusions of Chambers Group. However, this delineation would need to be verified and determined by the regulatory agencies.
Table 3 provides a summary of acreages of Jurisdictional Waters and the potential impacts to waters that occur within the Survey Area if they were to be affected. 36
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Table 3: Summary of Acreages of Potential Jurisdictional Waters that Occur Within the Impact Areas of the Project Site
USACE
CDFW
MSHCP
Riparian
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
0.07 133 0.88 3872
2.16 3872
0.37 480
5.7.5 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 Survey Area. 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 potential temporary impacts, refer to Table 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.
5.7.6 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 Survey Area contains three ephemeral drainages and one riverine feature. The limits of RWQCB jurisdiction, as defined by the OHWM and indicator features within the Survey Area, total 0.88 acre. The Project does not propose to fill in any physical water features. Therefore, a total of 0.81 acre of temporary impacts to current surface water features and up to 0.07 acre of temporary impacts to waters of the State matching WoUS under the potential jurisdiction of the RWQCB occur in the Survey Area. 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.
5.7.7 Potential CDFW Jurisdiction
There are 2.16 acres of disturbed upland and disturbed riparian vegetation within the B2B of the Survey Area 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 37
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
waters. Hydrophytic vegetation and indicators of hydrology were observed within the Survey Area; however, soils within the drainages did not exhibit hydric characteristics. Due to the absence of hydric soils and the disturbed condition of the drainages, the majority of the water features do not meet the classification of a wetland by CDFW. Permanent and temporary impacts to 1.86 acres within Drainages 1 through 3 will occur due to Project activities by directing the majority of stormwater runoff and nuisance water away from the mapped drainages and through the new RCP that empties into the riverine feature (Drainage 4). However, the physical surface features will be abandoned and not filled in. Runoff from rain and runoff from other directions to the Project area would still be able to enter the existing drainages. 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.
5.7.8 Potential MSHCP Jurisdiction
A total of 0.37 acre of vegetated streambed was mapped within the Survey Area. Of the 0.37 acre of vegetated streambed mapped, 0.26 acre may be permanently or temporarily 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 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.
5.8 MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The Survey Area is located within the San Timoteo and Badlands Unit, of the Pass Area Plan, and is not within a Criteria Cell (Figure 10: RCA Western Riverside County Criteria Area Cells). Because the site does not occur within a Criteria Cell, a Joint Project Review (JPR) is not required.
5.8.1 Covered Roads
Three Covered Roads fall within the Project ROW, which may be subject to temporary impacts such as lane closures, detours, or short-term construction activities, which could affect habitat connectivity and species movement. These roads include East 6th Street (major road), East 1st Street (secondary road), and Pennsylvania Avenue (secondary road). The Project will not permanently alter the Covered Roads within the ROW, and the affected ROW will be restored to previous condition after installation of the RCP. 38
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Figure 10: RCA Western Riverside County Criteria Area Cells Brookside Ave
Oak Valley
Club
Golf
o
Beaumont
ft
in High St
O
z Grand Ave
v
>
a
a
0 U
1791
Cougar Way
W
›.
¢
E
v
a
Oak Valley Pkhy
E 13th St
E 12th St
E 9th St
E 8th St
i 136th St
a
m
v Highland
Springs
3 Country
>
a
L
O,
=
'^
E 6th St
1st St
Blvd
Club
ai
>
ca
C
in
a
c
0 a,
x
Sun
'^
x
0 z-
v
D
a
U,
a
3 `o
,'
Sao
GOr9o010
Lakes
6,,b,
Sun Lakes
Country Club
San Cc
Hass
335
940
1015
Fw
y
2819
;Icy
79 79
E
Potrero
410
1413
2853 ft
1412
1404
1405
'i502
1505
1512
1507
1508
1499
1500
1501
1598
1600
1601
1599
1597
1593
1594
1595
,y 1596
9h7dna
1609
1698
1697
1696
U
O
1695
1694
1689
1690
1693
.9
1691 -e
F
1710
1795
1790
1791 '
1792
1788
1786
1787
1789
1794
Project Location
Criteria Cell
0 0.35
N
0.7 Figure 10
Beaumont MDP Line 2
RCA Western Riverside County Criteria Area Cells
1.4 Miles
Name : awe Beaumont MOP Lute z Msa = _ CHAMBERS
PamDela 1G 1/2020515 PMNd.: PUdoa it l' GROUP
39
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.8.2 Covered Public Access Activities
The covered public access uses within the MSHCP Conservation Area are composed of trails, facilities, and passive recreational activities. No MSHCP Trails, MSHCP Trailheads and Facilities, or Conserved Lands fall within the Project Area.
5.8.3 Reserve Assembly Analysis
The Reserve Assembly Analysis determines whether the Survey Area is located within the MSHCP Criteria Area and assesses its potential to affect the assembly of the reserve system envisioned under Section
6.1.1 of the MSHCP. The review includes consideration of Criteria Cells, Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands, Additional Reserve Lands (ARL), and habitat linkages to ensure that a project does not inhibit future reserve assembly.
The Survey Area is located within the Badlands Habitat Management Unit of the MSHCP Area. The Project will not require Reserve Assembly Analysis or RCA review in the form of Joint Project Review as the Survey Area is not located within a Criteria Cell or mapped habitat linkage area.
Public Quasi -Public Lands
The Project will not directly, nor is it anticipated to indirectly impact PQP Lands. The nearest PQP Lands are located approximately 1.9 miles southeast of the Survey Area (BLM land).
5.8.4 Vegetation Mapping and Species Compendia
A project -level vegetation map is required for projects that (1) need to demonstrate consistency with criteria, (2) are subject to the protection of species associated with Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pools policies included in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, (3) are subject to the Narrow Endemic Plant Species policies included in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, (4) are subject to the additional survey needs and procedures described in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, (5) are seeking criteria refinements as described in Section 6.5 of the MSHCP, and/or (6) need to demonstrate support of Reserve Assembly.
Vegetation mapping was conducted for the Project during the biological reconnaissance -level survey, and the mapping results are detailed in Section 5.2. A vegetation map for the project is included as Figure 3, and comprehensive list of plant species observed during the surveys is included as Appendix C.
5.8.5 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Riparian/Riverine
Riparian vegetation occurs in several locations within the Survey Area. Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Woodland vegetation was observed within two small stands in the southern portion of the Survey Area, one stand within the main drainage north of East 1st Street and the other stand south of East 1st Street where waters exit the site through a concrete culvert. Disturbed Goodding's Willow Woodland vegetation was observed in a small stand within the main drainage in the center of the Survey Area. Giant Reed Marsh vegetation was also observed within the main drainage in the center of the Survey Area. These areas were heavily disturbed by a buildup of sediment and debris. The rest of these drainages contained Disturbed 40
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
upland or Ruderal vegetation. According to the MSHCP, both vegetated and unvegetated drainages may be considered MSHCP resources, and therefore these drainage features may qualify as sensitive resources regardless of their current vegetative condition. Stormwater runoff is the primary source of water in these areas. In addition, the stand of Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Woodland also receives nuisance water from the surrounding residential neighborhood. These disturbed riparian areas are primarily vegetated with native Fremont cottonwood, Goodding's willow, mule fat, arroyo willow, and exotic species including giant reed. Although disturbed, these areas contain riparian vegetation and are therefore considered Riparian/Riverine habitat under the MSHCP.
Vernal Pools
There are no Vernal Pools located within or adjacent to the Survey Area, nor did historic aerial imagery show any evidence for the persistence of wetness/ponding that could indicate that Vernal Pools may be present in the Survey Area.
Fairy Shrimp
MSHCP covered fairy shrimp species include Riverside (Streptocephalus woottoni), Santa Rosa Plateau (Linderiella santarosae), and vernal pool (Branchinecta lynchi) fairy shrimp. If vernal pools or other suitable fairy shrimp habitats are located within the Survey Area, then fairy shrimp surveys must be conducted pursuant to the USFWS survey guidelines. Fairy shrimp can be found in non -vernal pool features such as stock ponds, ephemeral pools, road ruts, human -made depressions, or other depressions that may pond water. As such, these features are not exempt from evaluation as fairy shrimp habitat, and the possible need for focused surveys is still applicable. No aforementioned features that could potentially support fairy shrimp are present in the Survey Areas and thus, no focused surveys are required.
Riparian Birds
Several riparian bird species are covered under the MSHCP due to their reliance on high -quality riparian woodland and shrubland habitats for breeding and foraging. Key species Covered Species include the least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow -billed cuckoo, all of which require dense riparian vegetation dominated by willows, cottonwoods, and other moisture -dependent species. Because of their sensitivity to habitat disturbance and their specialized nesting requirements, the presence of suitable riparian habitat within the site requires evaluation to ensure these species are not adversely impacted. Additional details on these species are provided below.
Least Bell's Vireo
The least Bell's vireo (nesting and/or foraging) is a federal- and state -listed endangered subspecies of the Bell's vireo and an MSHCP Covered Species. The least Bell's vireo typically nests in willows (Salix sp.) and other riparian trees or shrubs and typically nests 3 to 6 feet above the ground. This species requires densely vegetated riparian habitat along streams and rivers during the spring and summer months to breed, and foraging habitat adjacent to its nesting territory, which is typically riparian or chaparral habitat.
The Survey Area lacks the dense riparian habitat and surface water required by this species for nesting and foraging; therefore, this species is not anticipated to occur within the site or be impacted by Project activities.
41
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
The southwestern willow flycatcher (nesting and/or foraging) is a federally endangered subspecies of willow flycatcher and an MSHCP Covered Species whose summer breeding range includes southern California (from the Santa Ynez River south), Arizona, New Mexico, extreme southern portions of Nevada and Utah, extreme southwest Colorado, and western Texas (USGS 2007). This species is known to breed in a variety of riparian habitats with multi -tiered canopies and surface water and/or saturated soils, whether along streams in broad valleys, in canyon bottoms, around mountain -side seepages, or at the margins of ponds and lakes. Where willow species dominate, high foliage -volume willow cover is preferred but with willow clumps separated by openings. Habitat types may include a variety of willow, cottonwood (Populus sp.), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), alder (Alnus sp.), and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) woodlands.
The Survey Area lacks multi -tiered canopies and surface water required by this species for nesting and foraging; therefore, the southwestern willow flycatcher is not anticipated to occur within the site or be impacted by Project activities.
Western Yellow -Billed Cuckoo
The western yellow -billed cuckoo (nesting and/or foraging) is a state -listed endangered species. The yellow -billed cuckoo is found primarily in the Eastern United States, but this subspecies is an extremely rare and localized summer resident of the southwestern U.S. Historically, it was found commonly throughout the Central Valley and California coastline until the early twentieth century. This species primarily inhabits mature, open riparian woodlands along the broad, lower flood -bottoms of larger river systems. Habitat features usually include some relatively open patches and intermixed low, dense, scrubby vegetation typical of these watercourses. In the southwestern U.S., the western yellow -billed cuckoo also occupies desert riparian woodlands composed of willows, cottonwoods, and dense mesquite (Prosopis sp.). It typically nests in willows and forages among the cottonwoods more than other trees. The Survey Area lacks the mature and dense riparian habitat required by this species; therefore, this species is not anticipated to occur within the site or be impacted by Project activities.
5.8.6 Other MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Species
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP 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 —not just fairy shrimp and riparian birds. Species with a potential to occur with the Survey Area are analyzed in Section 5.3 Special Status Species. However, 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 these species are not expected to occur, a preconstruction survey should be conducted prior to ground -disturbing activities to ensure no individuals are present. If any of these species are detected, measures to avoid or minimize impacts must be developed and submitted to the appropriate resource agencies for approval before construction begins.
5.9 PROTECTION OF NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES
Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP addresses the protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species and outlines the requirements for evaluating and conserving these species during project review. The MSHCP requires that all Narrow Endemic Plant Species be assessed for their potential to occur within a project area through a habitat -based evaluation that considers soil characteristics, vegetation communities, hydrology, and known regional occurrences.
42
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
The Project site falls within an MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Survey Area for Yucaipa onion (Allium marvinii), and many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis; RCA 2025a). Yucaipa onion occurs in openings of chaparral vegetation and requires clay soils (CNPS 2025b) which do not occur within the Survey Area. Many -stemmed dudleya occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill vegetation, often in heavy, often clay soils, and sandstone outcrops (CNPS 2025b, McCabe 2024). While the Annual Non-native Grassland vegetation community could be considered valley and foothill grassland, clay soils do not occur within the Survey Area and the vegetation is highly disturbed with dense non-native grass cover, and it is therefore not considered suitable habitat for this species; therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no species -specific mitigation is recommended at this time.
Special status plants with potential to occur within the Survey Area are discussed in Section 5.3.1 Special Status Plants.
43
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.10 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES
The following sections discuss Additional Survey Needs and Procedures as outlined in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
5.10.1 Criteria Area Plant Species
The Project does not fall within a mapped survey area for any of the Criteria Area plant species listed in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. As such, no focused surveys for Criteria Area plant species are required.
5.10.2 Amphibians
The Project does not fall within any MSHCP Amphibian Survey Areas, and no suitable aquatic or semi - aquatic habitat occurs within or adjacent to the Survey Area. Therefore, MSHCP covered amphibians requiring surveys are considered absent from the Survey Area, and no focused amphibian surveys or species -specific mitigation measures are required.
5.10.3 Burrowing Owl
The following APNs within the Project are within a Burrowing Owl Survey Area: 418-160-007, 418-240- 011, 418-250-009, 418-360-003, 419-630-030, 419-630-012, 419-630-011, 419-770-007, and 419-772- 001. Burrowing owl is a state candidate species for listing as endangered, an SSC, and is one of the 146 species covered by the MSHCP. Nesting in underground burrows typically abandoned by other animals such as ground squirrels, the burrowing owl prefers open, flat, grassland habitat, a factor that has led to declining numbers in the last 20 years as development has progressed. Under federal laws protecting migratory birds, both the owls and their burrows are protected. Areas within and outside the Survey Area, within 500 feet of the site, contain flat and open space consisting of disturbed tilled soils and Ruderal vegetation. These areas have a low potential to support burrowing owls; however, because the Project falls within a Burrowing Owl Survey Area and marginally suitable habitat exists on the site, focused surveys and a burrowing owl preconstruction survey will be required prior to the start of construction in accordance with the MSHCP's 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCA 2006).
5.10.4 Mammals
The site does not fall within any MSHCP Mammal Survey Areas, and existing site conditions do not provide specialized habitat features associated with these species. Therefore, MSHCP-covered mammals requiring surveys are considered absent from the Survey Area and no focused mammal surveys or species -specific mitigation measures are required.
5.11 INFORMATION ON OTHER SPECIES
5.11.1 Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly
Prior to conducting the biological reconnaissance -level survey for the Project, the MSHCP Information Map was queried for the Project APNs. In addition, the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey was reviewed for soil types found within the Survey Area.
4 L
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Results of the query indicated that the Survey Area is not located within a Delhi Sands Flower -loving Fly Survey Area. In addition, none of the soil types mapped within the Survey Area are Delhi sands soils.
Therefore, this species is not anticipated to occur within the site or be impacted by Project activities.
Details on soil types mapped within the Survey Area can be found in Section 5.6.
5.11.2 Coastal California gnatcatcher
Although protocol -level surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher are not required per the MSHCP, Permittees are required (per the USFWS Special Terms and Conditions for RCA's Permit TE-088609-0) to avoid clearing coastal California gnatcatcher—occupied habitat in the Criteria Area and in PQP lands between March 1 and August 15. The Project does not fall within nor is it adjacent to any Criteria Cells or PQP lands, and as such, this measure is not applicable to the Project. Further, the Survey Area does not support coastal California gnatcatcher, and no suitable habitat (Riversidian sage scrub or disturbed sage scrub) is present within the Survey Area. Habitat within the Survey Area consists primarily of disturbed upland and Ruderal vegetation with sparse native shrub cover. As a result, this species is considered absent from the Survey Area, and no species -specific mitigation measures are required.
5.11.3 Species not Adequately Conserved
According to Table 9-3 of the MSHCP, conservation criteria have not been met for 10 special status plant species and 9 wildlife species (RCA 2022). One of the nine wildlife species, grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), is considered partially conserved as the reproduction portion of the objective has not been met. Therefore, these species require an analysis for their potential to occur within the Survey Area. These species, their status, their general habitat requirements, and their potential to occur within the Survey Area, and the rationale is outlined in Table 4.
Table 4: MSHCP Covered Species not Adequately Conserved Common
Name
Status
General Habitat Description
Potential
to Occur
Rationale
California bedstraw
Galium californicum ssp.
primum
CRPR
16.2 Occurs granitic and sandy
soils within chaparral and
lower montane coniferous
forest at elevations between
4,430 and 5,580 feet amsl, in
Riverside and San Bernardino
counties.
Absent
Habitat, including the
elevation range, is not
present in the Survey Area.
In addition, there are no
known occurrences within 5
miles of the Survey Area
(CDFW 2025).
California muhly
Muhlenbergia californica
CRPR
4 3
Occurs in mesic soils along
seeps and streams within
chaparral, coastal scrub,
lower montane coniferous
forest, and meadows and
seeps at elevations between
330 and 6,560 feet amsl in
Los Angeles, Riverside, and
San Bernardino Counties
Absent
Habitat, including soils, is not
present in the Survey Area.
In addition, there are no
known occurrences within 5
miles of the Survey Area
(CDFW 2025).
45
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Common
Name
Status
General Habitat Description
Potential
to Occur
Rationale
California spotted owl
Strix occidentalis
occidentalis
SSC
Occurs across the Transverse
and Peninsular Ranges in
southern California within
montane hardwood and
montane hard wood -conifer
forests —especially those
with Canyon Live Oak
(Quercus chrysolepis) and
Bigcone Douglas -fir
(Pseudotsuga macrocarpa)—
at mid- to high elevations
and at low elevations, it uses
coastal oak woodland and
valley foothill riparian
habitats.
Absent
The Survey Area does not
contain dense coastal oak
woodlands or a dense
riparian habitat. In addition,
there are no known
occurrences within 5 miles
of the Survey Area
(CDFW 2025, USFWS 2024).
Therefore, this species is not
anticipated to occur within
the Survey Area.
chickweed oxytheca
Sidotheca [Oxytheca]
caryophylloides
CRPR
4.3 Occurs in lower montane
coniferous forest (sandy) at
elevations between 3,655
and 8,530 feet amsl in Los
Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura
Counties.
Absent
Habitat, including the
elevation range, is not
present in the Survey Area.
In addition, there are no
known occurrences within 5
miles of the Survey Area
(CDFW 2025).
Cleveland's bush
Monkeyflower
Diplacus [Mimulus]
clevelandii
CRPR
4.2 Occurs in disturbed areas
(often) in openings with
gabbrioic and rocky soils
within chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and lower
montane coniferous forest at
elevations between 1,475
and 6,560 feet amsl in
Orange, Riverside, and San
Diego counties.
Absent
Habitat, including soils, is
not present in the Survey
Area. In addition, there are
no known occurrences
within 5 miles of the Survey
Area (CDFW 2025).
cliff cinquefoil
Potentilla rimicola
CRPR
2B.3
Occurs in granitic and rocky
soils in subalpine coniferous
forest and upper montane
coniferous forest at
elevations between 7,875
and 9,185 feet amsl in
Riverside County.
Absent
Habitat, including soils and
the elevation range, is not
present in the Survey Area.
In addition, there are no
known occurrences within 5
miles of the Survey Area
(CDFW 2025).
46
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Common
Name
Status
General Habitat Description
Potential
to Occur
Rationale
grasshopper sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum
SSC
Occurs from Oregon south
along the California coast
and the east side of the
Sierras in the lowlands into
Baja California within
grassland habitats.
Low
The Survey Area contains
fragmented Annual Non -
native Grasslands; however,
these areas are surrounded
by disturbed, tilled soils.
There are also no known
occurrences within 5 miles
of the Survey Area
(CDFW 2025, USFWS 2024).
Therefore, there is a low
potential for this species to
occur within Survey Area.
lemon lily
Lilium parryi
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs in mesic soils within
lower montane coniferous
forest, meadows and seeps,
riparian forest, and upper
montane coniferous forest at
elevations between 4,005
and 9,005 feet amsl in Los
Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and San Diego
counties.
Absent
Habitat, including soils and
the elevation range, is not
present in the Survey Area.
In addition, there are no
known occurrences within 5
miles of the Survey Area
(CDFW 2025).
Lincoln's sparrow
Melospiza lincolnii
Breeds in wet meadows filled
with willows, alders, sedges,
and patches of cottonwoods,
and shrubby areas near
streams. During migration
they use brushy fields, forest
edges, and thickets. In the
winter they use tropical
forests, pine -oak forests,
tropical scrub, weedy
pastures, and shrubby fields.
Absent
The Survey Area does not
contain wet meadows or
streams required by this
species for nesting. In
addition, the site contains
low quality habitat for
migration. There are also no
known occurrences within 5
miles of the Survey Area
(CDFW 2025, USFWS 2024).
Therefore, this species is not
anticipated to occur within
the Survey Area.
Mojave tarplant
Deinandra mohavensis
SE,
CRPR
1B.3
Occurs in mesic soils in
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, and
riparian scrub at elevations
between 2,100 and 5,250
feet amsl in Inyo, Kern,
Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego, and Tulare
counties.
Absent
Habitat, including soils, is
not present in the Survey
Area. One known
occurrence of this species is
documented approximately
3.87 miles away from the
Survey Area. However, that
observation was in a dirt
roadside berm in chapparal
habitat.
47
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Common
Name
Status
General Habitat Description
Potential
to Occur
Rationale
ocellated Humboldt lily
Lilium humboldtii ssp.
ocellatum
CRR
4.2 Occurs in opening of
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
lower montane coniferous
forest (sandy), and riparian
woodland at elevations
between 10 and 5,905 feet
amsl in Los Angeles, Kern,
Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, and Ventura
counties.
Absent
Habitat, including soils, is
not present on the Project
Site. In addition, there are
no known occurrences
within 5 miles of the Project
Site.
San Bernardino flying
squirrel
Glaucomys sabrinus
califomicus
SSC
Occurs In the San Jacinto and
San Bernardino Mountains in
various woodlands, including
coniferous, mixed
coniferous -deciduous, and
broad -leaf -deciduous
forests.
Absent
Habitat is not present within
the Survey Area. In addition,
there are no known
occurrences within 5 miles
of the site (CDFW 2025,
USFWS 2024). Therefore,
this species is not
anticipated to occur within
the Survey Area.
San Bernardino
Mountain kingsnake
Lampropeltis zonata
parvirubra
Occurs in coniferous forest,
oak -pine woodlands, riparian
woodland, chaparral,
manzanita, coastal sage
scrub, and wooded areas
near a stream with rock
outcrops.
Absent
The Survey Area does not
contain dense woodland or
riparian habitat, nor does it
contain a stream with rock
outcrops. In addition, there
are no known occurrences
within 5 miles of the site
(CDFW 2025, USFWS 2024).
Therefore, this species is not
anticipated to occur within
the Survey Area.
San Diego Mountain
kingsnake
Lampropeltis zonata
pulchra
Occurs in forests, woodlands,
chaparral, grasslands,
marshes, farmland, ranches,
deserts, and brushy
suburban areas.
Absent
Habitat within the Survey
Area lacks a stream and
abundant cover like rocks,
logs, and burrows that this
species requires. In addition,
there are no known
occurrences within 5 miles
of the site (CDFW 2025,
USFWS 2024). Therefore,
this species is not
anticipated to occur within
the Survey Area.
48
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Common
Name
Status
General Habitat Description
Potential
to Occur
Rationale
shaggy -haired alumroot
Heuchera hirsutissima
CRPR
1B.3
Occurs in granitic and rocky
soils in subalpine coniferous
forest and upper montane
coniferous forest at
elevations between 4,985
and 11,485 feet amsl in
Riverside County.
Absent
Habitat, including soils and
the elevation range, is not
present in the Survey Area.
In addition, there are no
known occurrences within 5
miles of the Survey Area.
southern rubber boa
Charing bottae
umbratica
ST
Occurs montane forest with
relatively high humidity,
well -developed soil, granitic
rock formations, and woody
canopy openings.
Absent
The Survey Area does not
contain moist forested or
damp riparian habitats.
There are only two known
occurrences approximately
4.80 miles from the site, but
they were documented in
1970s and 1995 (CDFW
2025, USFWS 2024).
Therefore, this species is not
anticipated to occur within
the Survey Area.
southern sagebrush
lizard
Sceloporus graciosus
vandenburgianus
Occurs in shrublands such as
chaparral, manzanita and
ceanothus, as well as open
pine and Douglas fir forests,
mainly in the mountains.
Absent
The Survey Area is not
located in dense forested
areas of the mountains. In
addition, there are no
known occurrences within 5
miles of the site (CDFW
2025, USFWS 2024).
Therefore, this species is not
anticipated to occur within
the Survey Area.
sticky leaved dudleya
Dudleya viscida
CRPR
1B.2
Occurs In rocky areas within
coastal bluff scrub,
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal scrub
at elevations between 35
and 1,805 feet amsl in
Orange, Riverside, and San
Diego counties.
Absent
Habitat, including soils, is
not present in the Survey
Area. In addition, there are
no known occurrences
within 5 miles of the Survey
Area.
Williamson's sapsucker
Sphyrapicus thyroideus
Occurs in open coniferous
and mixed coniferous-
deciduous forests.
Absent
The Survey Area is not
located in the forested areas
that this species requires. In
addition, there are no
known occurrences within 5
miles of the site (CDFW
2025, USFWS 2024).
Therefore, this species is not
anticipated to occur within
the Survey Area.
49
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.12 URBAN/WILDLANDS INTERFACE
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP addresses the management of the urban/wildlands interface to minimize conflicts between development and adjacent natural habitats. While the Survey Area is primarily disturbed and contains Ruderal and upland vegetation, it connects downstream to wildlife corridors.
Although the site itself does not provide substantial natural habitat, its hydrologic connection could allow for wildlife movement through downstream corridors. Therefore, potential impacts related to the urban/wildlands interface are low, but standard construction best management practices should be implemented to minimize temporary disturbances in order to remain consistent with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.
5.13 CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
Section 7.5.3 Construction Guidelines are applicable to covered facilities within the Criteria Area and PQP Lands. The Project does not fall within a Criteria Area or PQP Lands, and therefore, this section is not applicable to the Project.
5.14 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The practices identified in MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C are applicable to all projects. This Project will implement the Appendix C Best Management Practices as applicable to the Project. Of particular note, a qualified biological monitor is required for the duration of the project (i.e., to monitor any activity that could directly or indirectly impact MSHCP resources). This should be included in the list of Conditions of Approval for the proposed Project.
50
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
SECTION 6.0 — PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION The Project will be in compliance with federal, state, and county ordinances protecting special status resources. The following sections provide a summary of the biological surveys, potential impacts based on current design, and recommended protection measures to avoid and minimize potential negative impacts to special status resources.
6.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Ten vegetation communities were observed 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. All vegetation communities may be permanently impacted. The total acres of each vegetation community that may be impacted within the Survey Area are found in Table 1.
6.2 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS
After the literature review, the assessment of the various habitat types in the Survey Area, and the reconnaissance -level survey was conducted, it was determined that 64 of the 69 special status plant species with a potential to occur are considered absent from the Survey Area and 5 species are considered to have a low potential to occur at the Survey Area due to low quality and disturbed suitable habitat.
Although small patches of suitable habitat containing exposed sandy wash are present in Drainages 2 and 3, these areas were heavily disturbed and of poor quality. These areas are filled with sediment and debris from stormwater runoff and sheet flow from the surrounding urban and disturbed areas as well as high non-native species cover (e.g., foxtail brome, shortpod mustard). Habitat surrounding the Survey Area consists of developed areas and non-native grassland and is unsuitable for any of these species. Due to the poor quality of suitable habitat for these species, these species are not expected to occur in the Survey Area.
Furthermore, all five of the special status species with low potential to occur in the Survey Area (Jaeger's milk -vetch, thread -leaved brodiaea, smooth tarplant, slender -horned spineflower, and Santa Ana River woollystar) 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.
6.3 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE
Of the 32 special status wildlife species identified in the literature review, it was determined that 18 special status wildlife species were considered absent from the Survey Area and 14 had a low potential to occur within the Survey Area. Least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow -billed cuckoo are not anticipated to occur within the Survey Area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur to these species, and no additional mitigation is recommended. While not anticipated to occur, in order to minimize potential impacts to these species, a preconstruction survey should be conducted prior to the start of construction activities. If any of the above species are identified, measures to avoid or minimize impacts to these species should be submitted to resource agencies for approval prior to construction. 51
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
6.3.1 Burrowing Owl
After conducting the biological reconnaissance -level survey, it was determined that the potential for burrowing owl to occur within the Survey Area is low. However, the Project does occur in an MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area and as marginally suitable habitat is present in the Survey Area, additional burrowing owl surveys will be required to comply with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. All surveys must be conducted in accordance with the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCA 2006) as follows:
• Habitat assessment - Burrowing owl can occur in many areas; therefore, most sites will support suitable habitat (e.g., ground squirrel burrows, boulder piles, concrete, pipes, catch basins, etc.) If a habitat assessment yields suitable habitat for burrowing owl, then 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 burrowing owl survey visits should be conducted during the breeding season (survey window is March 1 —August 31), and no less than two weeks apart, when suitable habitat is present.
If owls are not found during the focused surveys a burrowing owl preconstruction 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 burrowing owl (MSHCP Species Specific Objective 6). If burrowing owls are identified on site, avoidance measures will be developed in compliance with the MSHCP and in coordination with CDFW and RCA. These measures may include the following as well as any others developed in coordination with CDFW and/or RCA:
■ The Project proponent will coordinate with RCA and CDFW to see if the preparation of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan may be required.
■ If ground -disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre - construction survey will again be necessary to ensure burrowing owls have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed.
■ A biologist with knowledge of burrowing owl 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 burrowing owl to be provided to all personnel (including temporary contractors and subcontractors) before beginning work on the Project.
® The biological monitor will be present during vegetation clearing, grading, and construction, to monitor occupied burrowing owl 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 52
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
parking) will occur inside the limits of construction and designated staging areas. Construction staging and equipment storage will be located outside any occupied burrowing owl burrow locations.
• All movement of contractors, subcontractors, or their agents and equipment will be restricted to the limits of construction and staging areas.
• No relocation (passive or active) is acceptable without first coordinating with RCA and CDFW.
Eviction/passive relocation may be acceptable if suitable conserved habitat and natural or artificial burrows are within 75-100 meters, but only if done in coordination with and approval from RCA and CDFW. A qualified biologist would conduct any required passive or active relocation to avoid Project impacts to burrowing owls.
• If burrowing owl 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 Project would provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands acquired for burrowing owl impacts. This monitoring would include an annual report submittal to the CDFW.
The agencies will make the final determination on any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.
6.3.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as Amended (16 USC 703-711) In compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), any vegetation clearing should take place outside the general bird breeding season (February 1 to August 30), to the maximum extent practicable.
If this is not possible, a qualified biologist should conduct a nesting bird and raptor survey prior to ground - disturbing activities. The survey should occur no more than one week prior to initiation of Project activities, and any occupied passerine and/or raptor nests occurring within or adjacent to the Survey Area 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, and the young are no longer using the nest, the buffer may be removed.
6.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
Three ephemeral drainage features and one NWI mapped riverine feature occurs within and adjacent to the Survey Area. Up to 2.16 acres within the Survey Area 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.
To minimize impacts to the drainages, the following measures are recommended:
• A biological monitor in coordination with the contractor shall demark Project limit of disturbance boundaries prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities. Flagging and/or staking will be used to clearly define the work area boundaries and avoid impacts to adjacent drainage features. 53
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
• Erosion protection and sediment control BMPs shall be implemented in compliance with the Construction Stormwater General Permit.
6.4.1 Federal Permits
Drainages 1 through 3 delineated on the north side of East 1st Street within the Survey Area are considered ephemeral and only flow in direct response to precipitation events. Ephemeral drainages are not considered jurisdictional WoUS. The riverine feature on the south side of East 1st Street within the Survey Area (Drainage 4) is considered intermittent and eventually connects to the San Jacinto River (a TNW); therefore, based on the definition of WoUS, this drainage should be considered under USACE jurisdiction. However, if the Project design avoids the riverine feature and temporary impacts can be avoided through the use of BMPs, no impacts to WoUS would be anticipated to occur as a result of Project activities, and a Section 404 permit should not be required.
The agencies will review and verify the jurisdictional delineation and determine if permit and mitigation requirements are required for the Project.
6.4.2 State Permits
The three ephemeral drainages (Drainages 1 through 3) and intermittent riverine feature (Drainage 4) exhibit channelization and bank to bank geomorphology within the Survey Area; therefore, the drainages should be considered under CDFW jurisdiction. Permanent impacts to the ephemeral drainages will likely occur due to Project activities directing stormwater runoff and nuisance water away from the mapped drainages and through the new RCP that empties into the riverine feature. Impacts to the riverine feature are limited to Project activities surrounding the existing culvert and should not occur outside of the Project boundary. If the Project design avoids the riverine feature that occurs within the site and temporary impacts are avoided through the use of BMPs, no impacts to the riverine feature would be anticipated to occur as a result of Project activities. Although the Project plans to avoid associated banks and vegetation within the limits of the banks during Project activities, permanent impacts to the ephemeral drainages are anticipated to occur and temporary impacts to the riverine feature may occur, thus, an LSAA may be required from CDFW for this Project.
Based on this delineation, all the drainages mapped within the Survey Area are considered under RWQCB jurisdiction. Although the Project design plans to avoid these water features, permanent impacts to the ephemeral drainages are anticipated to occur and temporary impacts to the riverine feature may occur.
Impacts may be avoided through the use of BMPs; however, impacts to waters are anticipated to occur as a result of Project activities and a 401 Certification may be required.
The agencies will review and verify the jurisdictional delineation and determine if permit and mitigation requirements are required for the Project.
6.5 MSHCP CONSISTENCY
6.5.1 Riparian/Riverine
A total of 0.37 acre of riparian vegetated streambed was mapped within the Survey Area. However, the riparian vegetation is lacking the mature forest and canopy required by the riparian bird species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The site does not support vernal pools or other seasonal wetland habitats. In 54
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
addition, the site lacks basalt soils and other suitable habitat required by Riverside fairy shrimp, Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp, or vernal pool fairy shrimp. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in impacts to these species.
Per the MSHCP, if riparian/riverine resources are proposed for avoidance, the Project should commit to placing a conservation easement or deed restriction over the riparian/riverine areas in order to demonstrate that these areas will be protected in perpetuity. lithe proposed project cannot demonstrate avoidance of riparian/riverine habitat in perpetuity (permanently and temporarily), a DBESP report would be required in which to propose mitigation that demonstrates equivalent or superior function and value.
Indirect impacts, including any impacts to supporting hydrology, must also be addressed. If there are indirect impacts only, this may not necessarily result in the need to prepare a DBESP, but if no DBESP is required, these indirect impacts must be addressed in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation.
6.5.2 Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species
The Project site is located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area for Yucaipa onion and many -stemmed dudleya. However, a review of site conditions indicates that suitable habitat for these species is not present. Specifically, the soils within the survey area do not match the soil types required for these narrow endemic species. Because appropriate soils and associated habitat conditions are absent, focused surveys for these species are not required pursuant to Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.
6.5.3 Burrowing Owl
No burrowing owls or sign (such as burrows, feathers, pellets, or whitewash) were observed during the biological reconnaissance -level survey. However, the Project site is located within a Burrowing Owl Survey Area, and low -quality habitat (e.g., flat, open ground with sparse Ruderal vegetation and potential small mammal burrows) is present. In accordance with the MSHCP survey requirements, focused burrowing owl surveys will be required prior to ground -disturbing activities. In addition, a pre -construction survey is required to be conducted within 30 days prior to the start of construction to ensure compliance with the MSHCP and applicable wildlife protection regulations. Thes additional survey requirements are outlined in Section 6.3.1 of this report.
6.5.4 Best Management Practices
The BMPs identified in MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C are applicable to all projects. The MSHCP encourages BMPs to minimize impacts to biological resources during construction, including silt fences, sediment basins, dust control, and proper equipment staging. A qualified biological monitor is required for the duration of the project (i.e., to monitor any activity that could directly or indirectly impact MSHCP resources). This should be included in the list of Conditions of Approval for the proposed Project. BMP implementation helps protect habitat, water quality, and sensitive species, ensuring consistency with MSHCP conservation objectives.
55
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
SECTION 7.0 — REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (editors) 2012 The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, and M.W. Schwartz 1999 Terrestrial Plant Ecology, Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Menlo Park, CA.
Buck -Diaz, J., S. Batiuk, and J. M. Evens
2012 Vegetation Alliances and Associations of the Great Valley Ecoregion, California.
California Native Plant Society.
Buck -Diaz, J., and J. Evens
2011 Carrizo Plain National Monument Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project.
California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
2025 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind Version 5.2.14. Database Query for the Beaumont, Yucaipa, Forest Falls, San Gorgonio Mountain, EI Casco, Cabazon, Lakeview, San Jacinto, and Lake Fulmor, California USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangles. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Accessed October 2025.
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program (CNPS) 2025a Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v9.5.1). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Accessed online at htta://www.cn as.org/inventory for the Beaumont, Yucaipa, Forest Falls, San Gorgonio Mountain, EI Casco, Cabazon, Lakeview, San Jacinto, and Lake Fulmor California USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangles. Accessed October 2025. 2025b Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5.1). Accessed online at https://www.rareplants.cnps.org . Accessed October 2025.
D'Antonio, C. M., C. Malmstrom, S. A. Reynolds, and J. Gerlach 2007 Ecology of invasive non-native species in California grassland. Pages 67-86 in M.
Stromberg, J. Corbin, and C. M. D'Antonio, editors. California grassland: ecology and management. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Evens, J. and S. San
2005 Vegetation alliances of the San Dieguito River Park region, San Diego County, California.
Unpublished report, revised 2006. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Gray, J. and D. Bramlet
1992 Habitat Classification System, Natural Resources, Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, CA.
Kittel, G., E. Reyes, J. Evens, J. Buck, and D. Johnson 56
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
2012 Vegetation classification and mapping project report, Pinnacles National Monument.
National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.
McCabe, Stephen W.
2024 "Dudleya multicaulis," in Jepson eFlora, ed. Jepson Flora Project (Berkeley: University of California, 2024). Accessed November 2025 at
https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=23666 .
Munsell Color
2009 Munsell® Soil -Color Charts. Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Sawyer, J.O., Jr., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J.M. Evens
2009 A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
Sproul, F., T. Keeler -Wolf, P. Gordon -Reedy, J. Dunn, A. Klein, and K. Harper 2011 Vegetation classification manual for Western San Diego County, first edition. Report prepared for San Diego Association of Governments.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 2022 National Wetland Plant List, Arid West Region, version 3.6. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development center, Vicksburg, MS. Accessed online at http://wetland- plants.usace.army.mil/. Accessed October 2025.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2025 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.Rov/app/ . Accessed October 2025.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
2024 GIS Species Occurrence Data (updated December 2024) [Data set]. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Accessed online at https://www.fws.Rov/media/Ris-species-occurrence- data-updated-december-2024. Accessed October 2025.
2025a National Wetland Inventory (NWI). Accessed online at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ .
Accessed October 2025.
2025b Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) List. Accessed online at https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ . Accessed October 2025. 57
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2007 Breeding Ranges of Willow Flycatcher Subspecies. Accessed online at http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/cprs/research/protects/swwf/wiflrang.as D. Accessed October 2025.
2025 National Hydrology Dataset (NHD). U.S. Department of Interior, USGS. Official NHD.
Accessed online from National Hydrography Dataset U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov).
Accessed October 2025.
Vyverberg, K.
2010 A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds. California Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Engineering. Sacramento, CA.
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions. March 29, 2006. Accessed online at https://www.wrc-rca.org/species/survey . Accessed October 2025. 2022 Status of Covered Species Not Adequately Conserved (Table 9-3 Species). Last updated January 21, 2022. Accessed online at httas:// www.wrc-rca.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/01/Current Status of Covered Species Not Adequately Conse rved-REV2022.pdf. Accessed October 2025.
2025a Regional Conservation Authority. "Habitat Conservation." Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. Accessed online at httas:// www.wrc-rca.org/habitat- conservation/. Accessed October 2025.
2025b Riverside County Integrated Project. Conservation Planning Process/Description and Area Plan Criteria of the MSHCP Conservation Area. RCA MSHCP Information Map, 3.0.
Accessed online at https://www.wrc-rca.org/ . Accessed October 2025. 58
0 L610 Z09 abed
APPENDIX A - REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
0 L610 £00 abed
APPENDIX B - PHOTO STATION MAP AND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
01.610 1700 abed
APPENDIX C - PLANT SPECIES LIST
01.610 900 abed
APPENDIX D -WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
01.6 10 909 a6ed
APPENDIX E - OHWM AND WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS
0 L610 L00 abed
APPENDIX A - REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
1.1 FEDERAL JURISDICTION
1.1.1 United States Army Corps of Engineers
Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined by 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328 and currently includes: (1) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide), (2) all interstate waters and wetlands, (3) all other waters (e.g., lakes, rivers, intermittent streams) that could affect interstate or foreign commerce, (4) all impoundments of waters mentioned above, (5) all tributaries to waters mentioned above, (6) the territorial seas, and (7) all wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above. Waters of the United States do not include (1) waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and (2) prior converted cropland. Waters of the United States typically are separated into two types: (1) wetlands and (2) "other waters" (non -wetlands) of the United States.
Wetlands are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support ... a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987, USACE published a manual (1987 Wetland Manual) to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. This manual was amended in 2008 to the USACE 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (2008 Arid West Supplement). Currently, the 1987 Wetland Manual and the 2008 Arid West Supplement provide the legally accepted methodology for identification and delineation of USACE-jurisdictional wetlands in southern California.
In the absence of wetlands, the limits of USACE jurisdiction in nontidal waters, including intermittent Relatively Permanent Water (RPW) streams, extend to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), which is defined by 33 CFR 328.3(e) as:
... that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers) (SWANCC) that USACE jurisdiction does not extend to previously regulated isolated waters, including but not limited to isolated ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands. Examples of isolated waters that are affected by this ruling include vernal pools, stock ponds, lakes (without outlets), playa lakes, and desert washes that are not tributary to navigable or interstate waters or to other jurisdictional waters. A joint legal memorandum by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE was signed on January 15, 2003.
In May 2007, USACE and EPA jointly published and authorized the use of the Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook (USACE 2007). The form and guidebook define how to determine if an area is USACE jurisdictional and if a significant nexus exists per the Rapanos decision. A nexus must have more than insubstantial and speculative effects on the downstream TNW to be considered a significant nexus.
This guidebook is updated by the 2008 Arid West Supplement, the 2010 Updated Datasheet for the Chambers Group, Inc. A-1.
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States, and the 2011 Ordinary High Flows and the Stage -Discharge Relationship in the Arid West Region.
A joint guidance by EPA and USACE was issued on June 5, 2007, and revised on December 2, 2008, is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (126 S. Ct. 2208 [2006]) (Rapanos), which addresses the jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the CWA (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.). A draft guidance was circulated in April 2011 to supercede both the 2003 SWANCC guidance and 2008 Rapanos decision; however, this guidance is not finalized and lacks the force of law.
USACE will continue to assert jurisdiction over Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNWs), wetlands adjacent to TNW, non -navigable tributaries of TNW that are RPW where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months), and wetlands that directly abut such tributaries.
USACE generally will not assert jurisdiction over swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies or small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow) or nontidal drainage ditches (including roadside ditches) that are (1) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and (2) that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. USACE defines a drainage ditch as:
A linear excavation or depression constructed for the purpose of conveying surface runoff or groundwater from one area to another. An "upland drainage ditch" is a drainage ditch constructed entirely in uplands (i.e., not in waters of the United States) and is not a water of the United States, unless it becomes tidal or otherwise extends the ordinary high water line of existing waters of the United States.
Furthermore, USACE generally does not consider "[a]rtificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased" to be subject to their jurisdiction. Such irrigation ditches are linear excavations constructed for the purpose of conveying agricultural water from the adjacent fields.
Therefore, such agricultural ditches are not considered to be subject to USACE jurisdiction.
USACE will use fact -specific analysis to determine whether waters have a significant nexus with (1) TNW for nonnavigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent (non-RPW); (2) wetlands adjacent to nonnavigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and (3) wetlands adjacent to, but that do not directly abut, a relatively permanent nonnavigable tributary. According to USACE, "a significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters," including consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors. A primary component of this determination lies in establishing the connectivity or lack of connectivity of the subject drainages to a TNW.
1.2 STATE JURISDICTION
The State of California (State) regulates discharge of material into waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA as well as the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne; California Water Code, Division 7, §13000 et seq.). Waters of the State are defined by Porter -Cologne as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state" (Water Chambers Group, Inc. A-2
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Code Section 13050(e)). Waters of the State broadly includes all waters within the State's boundaries (public or private), including waters in both natural and artificial channels.
1.2.1 Regional Water Quality Control Board
Under Porter -Cologne, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the local Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) regulate the discharge of waste into waters of the State. Discharges of waste include "fill, any material resulting from human activity, or any other 'discharge' that may directly or indirectly impact 'waters of the state." Porter -Cologne reserves the right for the State to regulate activities that could affect the quantity and/or quality of surface and/or groundwaters, including isolated wetlands, within the State. Wetlands were defined as waters of the State if they demonstrated both wetland hydrology and hydric soils. Waters of the State determined to be jurisdictional for these purposes require, if impacted, waste discharge requirements (WDRs).
When an activity results in fill or discharge directly below the OHWM of jurisdictional waters of the United States (federal jurisdiction), including wetlands, a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required.
If a proposed project is not subject to CWA Section 401 certification but involves activities that may result in a discharge to waters of the State, the project may still be regulated under Porter -Cologne and may be subject to waste discharge requirements. In cases where waters apply to both CWA and Porter -Cologne, RWQCB may consolidate permitting requirements to one permit.
1.2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife.
CDFW defines a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation" (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 1.72). The jurisdiction of CDFW may include areas in or near intermittent streams, ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue -line streams that are indicated on USGS maps, watercourses that may contain subsurface flows, or within the flood plain of a water body. CDFW's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs." CDFW limits of jurisdiction typically include the maximum extents of the uppermost bank -to -bank distance and/or the outermost extent of riparian vegetation dripline, whichever measurement is greater.
In a CDFW guidance of stream processes and forms in dryland watersheds (Vyverberg 20101), streams are identified as having one or more channels that may all be active or receive water only during some high flow event. Subordinate features, such as low flow channels, active channels, banks associated with secondary channels, floodplains, and stream -associated vegetation, may occur within the bounds of a single, larger channel. The water course is defined by the topography or elevations of land that confine a stream to a definite course when its waters rise to their highest level. A watercourse is defined as a stream with boundaries defined by the maximal extent or expression on the landscape even though flow may otherwise be intermittent or ephemeral.
Chambers Group, Inc. A-3
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Artificial waterways such as ditches (including roadside ditches), canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other artificially created water conveyance systems also may be under the jurisdiction of CDFW. CDFW may claim jurisdiction over these features based on the presence of habitat characteristics suitable to support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, and/or stream -dependent terrestrial wildlife. As with natural waterways, the limit of CDFW jurisdiction of artificial waterways includes the uppermost bank -to -bank distance and/or the outermost extent of riparian vegetation dripline, whichever measurement is greater.
CDFW does not have jurisdiction over wetlands, but has jurisdiction to protect against a net loss of wetlands. CDFW supports the wetland criteria recognized by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); one or more indicators of wetland conditions must exist for wetlands conditions to be considered present. The following is the USFWS-accepted definition of a wetland:
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes:
(1) at least periodically, the lands supports hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Cowardin et al. 19792).
In A Clarification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetland Definition (Tiner 19893), the USFWS definition was further clarified "that in order for any area to be classified as wetland by the Service, the area must be periodically saturated or covered by shallow water, whether wetland vegetation and/or hydric soils are present or not; this hydrologic requirement is addressed in the first sentence of the definition." When considering whether an action would result in a net loss of wetlands, CDFW will extend jurisdiction to USFWS-defined wetland conditions where such conditions exist within the riparian vegetation that is associated with a stream or lake and does not depend on whether those features meet the three -parameter USACE methodology of wetland determination. If impacts to wetlands under the jurisdiction of CDFW are unavoidable, a mitigation plan will be implemented in coordination with CDFW to support the CDFW policy of "no net loss" of wetland habitat.
Kris Vyverberg, A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds (Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game, 2010), https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=25779 . 2 Lewis M. Cowardin, Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979), https://www . epa.gov/s ites/d efa u It/fi I es/2017-05/documents/cows rd i n_1979. pdf 3 Ralph W. Tiner, "A Clarification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetland Definition," National Wetlands Newsletter 11, no. 3 (1989): 6, https://www.eli.org/national-wetlands-newsletter/clarification-us-fish-and-wildlife- services-wetland-definition.
Chambers Group, Inc. A-4
0L-61oZ1.9abed
APPENDIX B - PHOTO STATION MAP AND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2 — CHAMBERS
Print Date: 5)141202611:12 AM Author pcarlos °4 GROUP
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
APPENDIX B - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1.
Overview photo
of East 6th Street.
This area is fully
developed with
sidewalks on both
sides of the
highway. Photo is
facing east.
Photo 2.
Overview photo of
the vacant lot
located on the
west side of
Pennsylvania
Avenue. This area
is primarily bare
ground. Photo is
facing southwest.
Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 3.
Overview photo of
the vacant lot
located on the
east side of
Pennsylvania
Avenue. This lot
looks recently
mowed/graded
and is dominated
by Ruderal
vegetation. Photo
is facing
southeast.
Photo 4.
Concrete -lined
raised manhole at
the off -ramp of
westbound I-10
on the east side of
Pennsylvania
Avenue. A
concrete drainage
follows parallel to
the off -ramp.
Photo is facing
northeast.
Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 5.
Concrete -lined
raised manhole at
the off -ramp of
westbound 1-10
on the east side of
Pennsylvania
Avenue. An
asphalt drainage
contributes runoff
from the off -
ramp. Photo is
facing southwest
toward 1-10.
Photo 6.
Concrete -lined
sewer grate on
the opposite side
of the off -ramp of
westbound 1-10;
located on the
west side of
Pennsylvania
Avenue. Photo is
facing west.
Chambers Group, Inc. 3
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 7.
Overview photo of
Pennsylvania
Avenue south of l-
10. This area is
developed with
Ruderal
vegetation
growing along the
east side of the
road. Photo is
facing north.
Photo 8.
Overview photo of
the open space on
the corner of
Pennsylvania
Avenue and East
1st Street. The
open space is
dominated by
Ruderal vegetation
and the soil looked
to be recently
tilled. Photo is
facing northeast.
Chambers Group, Inc. 4
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 9.
Overview photo of
the newly
constructed East
2nd Street that
cuts through the
open space and
adjoins
Pennsylvania
Avenue. Photo is
facing west.
Photo 10.
Overview photo
along East 1st
Street. The north
side of the road is
dominated by
Ruderal
vegetation. The
ephemeral
drainage continues
southeast and
crosses
underground
through a
concrete -lined
culvert. Photo is
facing west.
Chambers Group, Inc. 5
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 11.
Overview photo of
the south side of
East 1st Street.
The NWI riverine
feature collects
nuisance water
and flood water
from rain events
from the three
ephemeral
drainages on the
north side of East
1st Street. Photo
is facing south.
Photo 12.
Overview photo of
detention basin
located south of
East 1st Street that
drains into the
NWI riverine
feature. This basin
conveys
stormwater runoff
and nuisance
water from the
surrounding
residential
neighborhood.
Photo is facing
northwest.
Chambers Group, Inc. 6
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 13.
Overview photo of
the NWI mapped
riverine feature as
it leaves the
Survey Area.
Riparian habitat is
located within the
channel. Photo is
facing south.
Photo 14.
Close up photo of
the culvert located
on the south side
of East 1st Street.
The culvert
facilitates the
nuisance water
and flood water
during rain events
from three
ephemeral
drainages
upstream. An
excess amount of
sediment and
debris has built up
from flooding
events. Photo is
facing west.
Chambers Group, Inc. 7
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 15.
Overview of the
culvert located on
the south side of
East 1st Street. An
excess amount of
sediment and
debris has built up
from flooding
events. A small
patch of giant
reed is present
within the area.
Photo is facing
northwest.
Photo 16.
Overview photo of
Soil Pit 1 located
within the NWI
riverine feature
south of East 1st
Street. Native
vegetation
includes Fremont
cottonwood, mule
fat, and California
buckwheat. Non-
native vegetation
includes giant
reed and other
invasive weed
species. Photo is
facing southwest.
Chambers Group, Inc. 8
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 17.
Soils pulled from
Soil Pit 1 are sandy
loam and not
classified as hydric.
Photo 18.
Overview photo of
Soil Pit 2 located
within the NWI
riverine feature
south of East 1st
Street. Native
vegetation
includes Fremont
cottonwood, mule
fat, and California
buckwheat. Non-
native vegetation
includes giant
reed and other
invasive weed
species. Photo is
facing south.
Chambers Group, Inc. 9
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 19.
Soils pulled from
Soil Pit 2 are
sandy loam and
not classified as
hydric.
Photo 20.
Overview photo of
the hillside
surrounding the
culvert south of
East 1st Street.
The hillside has
eroded and
contributes to the
excess soil and
debris built up
near the culvert
within the Survey
Area. Vegetation
on the hillside is
dominated with
Disturbed
California
Buckwheat Scrub.
Photo is facing
northwest.
Chambers Group, Inc. 10
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 21.
Overview photo of
the culvert located
on the north side
of East 1st Street
where all three
ephemeral
drainages join and
connect to the
NWI riverine
feature.
Vegetation is
dominated by
Disturbed
California
Buckwheat Scrub
and patches of
ragweed and
cocklebur. Photo is
facing west.
Photo 22.
Overview of the
culvert located on
the west side of
Pennsylvania
Avenue. There are
no hydrological
features present
in the area and
vegetation is
Ruderal and
disturbed from
soil tilling. The
culvert receives
stormwater flow
and connects to
Drainage 1 on the
east side of
Pennsylvania
Avenue. Photo is
facing east.
Chambers Group, Inc. 11
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 23.
Overview of the
culvert that
crosses under
Pennsylvania
Avenue. The
culvert receives
stormwater flow
that contributes
to Drainage 1 on
the east side of
Pennsylvania
Avenue. Photo is
facing west.
Photo 24.
Overview of
Drainage 1 prior
to entering the
culvert under the
newly constructed
East 2nd Street.
Drainage 1
contains a break
in slope, wracking,
and soil cracks.
Photo is facing
southeast.
Chambers Group, Inc. 12
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 25.
Overview of
Drainage 1 prior
to joining with
Drainage 2.
Disturbed
California
Buckwheat Scrub
is located within
the channel.
Photo is facing
southeast.
Photo 26.
Overview of the
Disturbed
Fremont
Cottonwood and
Arroyo Willow
Thicket observed
within Drainage 2.
Photo is facing
northeast.
Chambers Group, Inc. 13
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 27.
Overview photo of
Soil Pit 3 located
within Drainage 2.
Disturbed
Fremont
Cottonwood and
Disturbed Arroyo
Willow Thicket
vegetation
communities
present within the
channel as well as
other invasive
weed species.
Photo is facing
south.
Photo 28.
Soils pulled from
Soil Pit 3 are
sandy loam and
not classified as
hydric.
Chambers Group, Inc. 14
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 29.
Overview of
Drainage 2
downstream of
the newly
constructed East
2nd Street. Photo
is facing south.
Photo 30.
Overview of
Drainage 2
upstream of the
newly constructed
East 2nd Street.
Photo is facing
north.
Chambers Group, Inc. 15
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 31.
Overview of
Drainage 3 (right)
joining Drainage 2
(left). The area is
primarily
dominated by
Annual Brome
Grassland. Photo
is facing
northwest.
Photo 32.
Overview of the
willow patch
observed in
Drainage 2. Photo
is facing south.
Chambers Group, Inc. 16
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 33.
Overview of the
giant reed patch
observed within
Drainage 2. Photo
is facing
northwest.
Photo 34.
Overview photo of
Soil Pit 4 located
within Drainage 2.
Disturbed
Goodding's
Willow Woodland
and Giant Reed
Marsh vegetation
communities are
present within the
channel as well as
other invasive
weed species.
Photo is facing
north.
Chambers Group, Inc. 17
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 35.
Soils pulled from
Soil Pit 4 are
sandy loam and
not classified as
hydric.
Photo 36.
Overview of an
old stormwater
drainage located
within Drainage 2.
The culvert
located east of
Pennsylvania
Avenue looks to
be capped and the
concrete drainage
no longer looks to
facilitate flows.
Photo is facing
west.
Chambers Group, Inc. 18
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 37.
Overview of the
Disturbed
California
Buckwheat Scrub
surrounding
Drainage 2. Photo
is facing
southeast.
Photo 38.
Overview of
Drainage 2
upstream. The
area is primarily
dominated by
Ruderal
vegetation. Photo
is facing north.
Chambers Group, Inc. 19
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 39.
Overview of one
of the culverts
that drains
nuisance water
and stormwater
runoff from
Pennsylvania
Avenue into
Drainage 2. Photo
is facing
southeast.
Photo 40.
Stormwater
runoff from the
Union Pacific
Railroad flows
into Drainage 2.
The area is
primarily
dominated by tree
of heaven as well
as other invasive
weed species.
Photo is facing
west.
Chambers Group, Inc. 20
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Stormwater
runoff from the
Union Pacific
Railroad flows
through a culvert
on the south side
of the railroad
into Drainage 2.
Photo is facing
south.
Stormwater
runoff from the
Union Pacific
Railroad flows
through a culvert
on the north side
of the railroad
into Drainage 2.
Photo is facing
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 43.
Nuisance water
and stormwater
runoff from the
residential area
north of I-10 flows
through these two
culverts that then
drain under the
railroad culvert
and into Drainage
2. Photo is facing
north.
Photo 44.
Stormwater
runoff from the
Union Pacific
Railroad flows
through a culvert
under
Pennsylvania
Avenue on the
north side of the
railroad and
eventually drains
into Drainage 2.
Photo is facing
northwest.
Chambers Group, Inc. 22
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 45.
Stormwater
runoff from the
Union Pacific
Railroad flows
through a culvert
under
Pennsylvania
Avenue on the
south side of the
railroad and
eventually drains
into Drainage 2.
Photo is facing
west.
Photo 46.
Drainage 3
consists of
primarily Upland
Mustard and Star -
thistle Fields as
well as Disturbed
Perennial
Buckwheat and
Sand -aster Field
vegetation
communities.
Photo is facing
south.
Chambers Group, Inc. 23
21501
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 47.
Drainage 3 starts
to channelize
outside of the
Survey Area
originating from
stormwater runoff
and sheet flow
from the railroad
and open lot to
the north and
northeast. Photo
is facing
northeast.
Chambers Group, Inc. 24
21501
01.6 10 8£5 a6ed
APPENDIX C - PLANT SPECIES LIST
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
APPENDIX C - PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Scientific Name
Common Name
ANGIOSPERMS (EUDICOTS)
ADOXACEAE
MUSKROOT FAMILY
Sambucus nigra subsp. caerulea
blue elderberry
APOCYNACEAE
DOGBANE FAMILY
Trachelospermum jasminoides*
star .asmine
ASTERACEAE
SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia psilostachya
western ragweed
Artemisia californica
California sagebrush
Artemisia douglasiana
mucwort
Baccharis pilularis
coyote brush
Baccharis salicifolia
mule fat
Centaurea melitensis*
tocalote
Centaurea solstitialis*
yellow star -thistle
Corethrogyne filaginifolia
sand -aster
Ericameria palmeri var. pachylepis
Palmer's goldenbush
Erigeron canadensis
Canada horseweed
Helianthus annuus
common sunflower
Heterotheca grandiflora
telecraph weed
Isocoma menziesii
coast goldenbush
Pseudognaphalium beneolens
fragrant everlasting
Pseudognaphalium sp.
cudweed
Stephanomeria pauciflora
wire lettuce
Xanthium strumarium
rough cocklebur
BORAGINACEAE
BORAGE FAMILY
Eriodictyon crassifolium
thick -leaved yerba santa
BRASSICACEAE
MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica nigra*
black mustard
Brassica rapa*
field mustard
Hirschfeldia incana*
shortood mustard
Raphanus sativus*
wild radish
Sisymbrium irio*
London rocket
CHENOPODIACEAE
GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Salsola australis*
Russian -thistle
EUPHORBIACEAE
SPURGE FAMILY
Croton setiger
turkey -mullein
FABACEAE
LEGUME FAMILY
Acmispon glaber
deerweed
Lupinus bicolor
miniature lupine
GERANIACEAE
GERANIUM FAMILY
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
1
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Erodium SD.
erodium
LAMIACEAE
MINT FAMILY
Salvia apiana
white sate
Salvia mellifera
black sace
Trichostema lanceolatum
vinegar weed
MYRTACEAE
MYRTLE FAMILY
Eucalyptus sp.*
gum tree
PLANTAGINACEAE
PLANTAIN FAMILY
Plantago major*
ribwort
PLATANACEAE
SYCAMORE FAMILY
Platanus racemosa
western sycamore
POLYGONACEAE
BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum elongatum
loncstem buckwheat
Eriogonum fasciculatum
California buckwheat
Eriogonum gracile
slender woolly buckwheat
ROSACEAE
ROSE FAMILY
Rhaphiolepis indica*
Indian hawthorn
SALICACEAE
WILLOW FAMILY
Populus fremontii
Fremont cottonwood
Salix gooddingii
Goodding's willow
Salix lasiolepis
arroyo willow
SIMAROUBACEAE
QUASSIA FAMILY
Ailanthus altissima*
tree of heaven
SOLANACEAE
NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura wrightii
imson weed
ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTS)
CYPERACEAE
SEDGE FAMILY
Cyperus eragrostis
tall cyperus
POACEAE
GRASS FAMILY
Arundo donax*
giant reed
Avena fatua*
wild oat
Bromus diandrus*
ripgut crass
Bromus madritensis
foxtail brome
Cynodon dactylon*
Bermuda grass
Hordeum murinum*
foxtail barley
Stipa pulchra
purple needlegrass
GYMNOSPERMS
PINACEAE
PINE FAMILY
Pinus sp.
pine
*Non -Native Species
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
2
01.610 Lt'0 abed
APPENDIX D -WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
APPENDIX D - WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED
ntific N • ,:
Common NOM'
CLASS AVES
BIRDS
ACCIPITRIDAE
HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES
Buteo jamaicensis
red-tailed hawk
CATHARTIDAE
NEW WORLD VULTURES
Cathartes aura
turkey vulture
COLUMBIDAE
PIGEONS & DOVES
Columba livia
rock pigeon
Zenaida macroura
mourning dove
CORVIDAE
JAYS & CROWS
Corvus corax
common raven
FRINGILLIDAE
FINCHES
Carpodacus mexicanus
house finch
ICTERIDAE
BLACKBIRDS
Sturnella neglecta
western meadowlark
PASSERELLIDAE
NEW WORLD SPARROWS
Melospiza melodia
song sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis
savannah sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys
white -crowned sparrow
PASSERIDAE
OLD WORLD SPARROWS
Passer domesticus
house sparrow
TYRANNIDAE
TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayornis saya
Say's phoebe
CLASS MAMMALIA
MAMMALS
LEPORIDAE
HARES & RABBITS
Sylvilagus audubonii
desert cottontail
CLASS REPTILIA
REPTILES
PHRYNOSOMATIDAE
ZEBRA -TAILED, EARLESS, FRINGE -TOED, SPINY,
TREE, SIDE -BLOTCHED, AND HORNED LIZARDS
Sceloporus occidentalis
western fence lizard
Uta stansburiana
side -blotched lizard
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
1
01.6 10 £I70 abed
APPENDIX E - OHWM AND WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region
Project/Site: Beaumont MDP Line 2
Applicant/Owner: City
City/County: Beaumont/Riverside County Sampling Date: 1/14/25 State: CA Sampling Point: 1
Investigator(s): Heather Madera and Austin Burke Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: 33.921449N Long: 116.963482 Datum:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) ✓
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Yes
No ✓
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Heavy flooding has made this area problematic. See below.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
1. Fremont Cottonwood 10 X FACW
2. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
3. 4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
10 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Mule Fat 35 X FAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. Giant reed 15 X FACW
3. California buckwheat 5
OBL species x 1 =
4,
FACW species 25 x 2 = 50
5. FAC species 35 x 3 = 105
60 = Total Cover
FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
UPL species x 5 =
1. Ripgut 5
Column Totals: 60 (A) 155 (B)
2. shortpod mustard 1
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.58
3. Russian thistle 10
4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
✓ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0'
— Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
✓ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
—
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5. 6.
7. $
16 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes V No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:
This area is problematic. This portion of the Survey Area is heavily disturbed. There is an excess amount of sediment and debris that has built up around the culvert within the Survey Area. Although wetland vegetation species are present and clear channelization of the drainage occurs, hydric soils were not found within the excess of sediment. n......, CAA .1 (kill
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features
the absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
0-18 7.5 YR 6/4 100
Sandy Loa Excess sediment built up outside
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5)
Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) ✓ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✓ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
There is a build up of sediment and debris within the Survey Area right outside of the culvert which makes this area problematic but the area should still be considered a MSHCP Riparian Habitat. MSHCP Riparian Habitat is also located further downstream of the Project site as it connects to Potrero Creek.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
Print Form
Save As
E-mail
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
RAPID ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USAGE CECW-CO-R.
FromApproved-
OMB No. 0710-OHWM
Expires: xx-xx-xxxx
The
reviewing
information.
Services,
law,
number.
AGENCY DISCLOSURE
public reporting burden for this collection of information, 0710-OHWM, is estimated instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the Send comments regarding the burden estimate or burden reduction suggestions at [email protected]. Respondents NOTICE
to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of to the Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters
should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection Project ID #: 21501 Site Name: Beaumont MDP Line 2 Date and Time: 1/14/2025, 1.030AM Location (lat/long): 33.921353N 116.963417W Investigator(s): Heather Madera and Austin Burke Step
1 Site overview from remote and online resources
Check boxes for online resources used to
evaluate site:
geologic maps
land use maps
Other:
Describe land use and flow conditions from online resources.
Were there any recent extreme events (floods or drought)? Survey Area receives water through flooding
events that exit the culvert in the southern
portion of the site.
gage data
LiDAR X
climatic data
X
satellite imagery
aerial photos
topographic maps r
Step 2 Site conditions during field assessment. First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional features, and changes in vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances that would affect flow and channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc.
The area around the southern culvert is heavily disturbed. The hillside shows some signs of erosion. There is an excess amount of sediment and debris directly outside of the culvert. OHWM is clear as it exits the Project boundary.
Step 3 Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM.
OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be the drop -down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by just above 'a' the OHWM.
OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, just
selecting
below and above the OHWM. From
either just below 'b', at 'x', or
and to attach a photo log.
erosional bedload indicators
obstacle marks, scour, a
s
Secondary
undercut bank:
Q
X unvegetated:b
Sediment indicators
Xvalley bottom:b
vegetation transition
(go to veg. indicators)
X
Soil
Changes
Mudcracks:
C
natural levee:
or levees:
deposition bedload indicators
b
X (e.g., imbricated clasts,
man-made berms
gravel sheets, etc.)
limit of sand -sized particles
roots below
layer: x
bedforms (e.g., poofs,
s, etc. riffles, ste ):
other
berms: p
Vegetation Indicators
Exposed
intact
XChange in vegetation
and/or density:
channel,
the
type x
boxes and select
change (e.g.,
shrubs). Describe
looking from
up the
floodplain.
forbs to:
X
Check the appropriate
the general vegetation
graminoids to woody
the vegetation transition
the middle of the
banks, and into
graminoids to:
Ancillary indicators
woody �/
shrubs to: /�
Wracking/presence of x
organic litter:
Presence of large wood:
Leaf litter disturbed or
washed away:
Water staining:
Weathered clasts or bedrock:
deciduous
trees to:
coniferous
trees to:
b
vegetation
absent to:
X Vegetation matted down
and/or bent:
moss to:
Other observed indicators? Describe:
Area is disturbed and gets a an excess amount of sediment and debris that flows through the culvert.
ENG FORM 6250, SEP 2021
PREVIC I54I�ISQ lOSOLETE.
Print Form
Save As
E-mail
Project ID #: 21501
Step 4 Is additional information needed to support this determination? Yes X No If yes, describe and attach information to datasheet:
Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM
There is a distinct cut in bank as waters are directed southeast through the culvert. The inundation is visible through aerial imagery. Most of the area below the OHWM is bare ground and leaf litter. There is a large amount of sediment and debris in the bed of the channel. OHWM is approximately 21 feet wide and the B2B is approximately 106 feet wide.
Additional observations or notes
Attach a photo log
Photo log
of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. attached? Yes No If no, explain why not:
List photographs and include descriptions in the table below.
Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features.
Photo
Number
Photograph description
ENG FORM 6250, SEP 2021
Print Form
Save As
OHWM Field Identification Datasheet Instructions and Field Procedure E-mail
Step 1
Site overview from remote and online resources Complete Step 1 prior to site visit.
Online Resources: Identify what information is available for the site. Check boxes on datasheet next to the resources used to assess this site.
a. gage data e. topographic maps
b. aerial photos f. geologic maps
c. satellite imagery g. land use maps
d. LiDAR h. climatic data (precipitation and temperature) Landscape context: Use the online resources to put the site in the context of the surrounding landscape. a. Note on the datasheet under Step 1:
i. Overall land use and change if known
ii. Recent extreme events if known (e.g., flood, drought, landslides, debris flows, wildfires) b. Consider the following to inform weighting of evidence observed during field visit. i. What physical characteristics are likely to be observed in specific environments? ii. Was there a recent flood or drought? Are you expecting to see recently formed or obscured indicators? iii. How will land use affect specific stream characteristics? How natural is the hydrologic regime? How stable has the landscape been over the last year, decade, century?
Step 2 Site conditions during the field assessment (assemble evidence) a. Identify the assessment area.
b. Walk up and down the assessment area noting all
the potential OHWM indicators.
c. Note broad trends in channel shape, vegetation,
and sediment characteristics.
i. Is this a single thread or multi -thread system?
Is this a stream -wetland complex?
ii. Are there any secondary and/or floodplain channels? iii. Are there obvious man-made alterations to the system? iv. Are there man-made (e.g., bridges, dams, culverts) or natural structures (e.g., bedrock outcrops, Large Wood
jams) that will influence or control flow?
Step 3a List evidence
d. Look for signs of recurring fluvial action.
i. Where does the flow converge on the landscape?
ii. Are there signs of fluvial action (sediment sorting, bedforms, etc.) at the convergence zone?
e. Look for indicators on both banks. If the opposite bank is not accessible, then look across the channel at the bank.
f. In Step 2 of the datasheet describe any adjacent land use or flow conditions that may influence interpretation of each line of evidence.
i. What land use and flow conditions may be affecting your ability to observe indicators at the site?
ii. What recent extreme events may have caused changes to the site and affected your ability to observe indicators?
Assemble evidence by checking the boxes next to each line of evidence:
a. If needed, use a separate scratch datasheet
to check boxes next to possible indicators,
or check boxes of possible indicators in
pencil and use pen for final decision.
b. If using fillable form, then follow the
instructions for filling in the fillable form.
Context is important when assembling evidence. For instance, pool development may be an indicator of interest on the bed of a dry stream, but may not be a useful indicator to take note of in a flowing stream. On the other hand, if the pool is found in a secondary channel adjacent to the main channel, it could provide a line of evidence for a minimum elevation of high flows. Therefore, consider the site context when deciding which indicators provide evidence for identifying the OHWM. Explain reasoning in Step 5.
Questions to consider while making observations and listing evidence at a site:
Geomorphic indicators
Where are the breaks in slope?
Are there identifiable banks?
Is there an easily identifiable
top of bank?
Are the banks actively eroding?
Are the banks undercut?
Are the banks armored?
Is the channel confined by
the surrounding hillslopes?
Are there natural or man-made
berms and levees?
Are there fluvial terraces?
Are there channel bars?
Sediment and soil indicators
Where does evidence of
soil formation appear?
Are there mudcracks present?
Is there evidence of sediment
sorting by grain size?
Are the following features of fluvial transport present? Evidence of erosion: obstacle marks, scour, armoring
Bedforms; riffles, pools, steps, knickpoints/headcuts
Evidence of deposition: imbricated clasts, gravel sheets, etc.
Vegetation Indicators
Where are the significant transitions in
vegetation species, density, and age?
Is there vegetation growing on the channel bed?
If no, how long does it take for the non -tolerant
vegetation to establish relative to how often flows
occur in the channel?
Where are the significant transitions in
vegetation?
Is the vegetation tolerant of flowing water?
Has any vegetation been flattened by flowing
water?
Ancillary indicators
Is there organic litter
present?
Is there any leaf litter
disturbed or washed
away?
Is there large wood
deposition?
Is there evidence of
water staining?
In some cases, it may be helpful to explain why an indicator was NOT at the OHWM elevation, but found above or below. It can also be useful to note if specific indicators (e.g., vegetation) are NOT present. For instance, note if the site has no clear vegetation zonation.
ENG FORM 6250, SEP 2021
Print Form
Save As
E-mail
OHWM Field Identification Datasheet Instructions and Field Procedure Step 3b Weight each line of evidence and weigh body of evidence Weight each indicator by considering its importance based upon:
a. Relevance:
i. Is this indicator left by low, high, or extreme flows? Tips on how to assess the indicator relative to type of flow:
Consider the elevation of the indicator relative to the channel bed.
What is the current flow level based on season or nearby gages? Consider the elevation of the indicator relative to the current flow.
If the stream is currently at baseflow and indicator is adjacent to that, then it is likely a low flow indicator. The difference between high and extreme flow indicators can sometimes be difficult to determine. ii. Did recent extreme events and/or land use affect this indicator?
1. Recent floods may have left many extreme flow indicators, or temporarily altered channel form.
Other resources will likely be needed to support any OHWM identification at this site. Field evidence of the OHWM may have to wait for the site to recover from the recent flood.
2. Droughts may cause field evidence of OHWM to be obscured, because there has been an extended time since the last high flow event. There can be overgrowth of vegetation or deposition of material from surrounding landscape that can obscure indicators.
3. Both man-made (e.g., dams, construction, mining activities, urbanization, agriculture, grazing) and natural (e.g., fires, floods, debris flows, beaver dams) disturbances can all alter how indicators are expected to appear at a site. Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the OHWM field manual provides specific case -studies that can help in interpreting evidence at these sites. b. Strength:
i. Is this indicator persistent across the landscape?
1. Look up and downstream and across the channel to see if you see the same indicator at multiple locations.
2. Does the indicator occur at the same elevation as other indicators? c. Reliability:
i. Is this indicator persistent on the landscape over time? Will this indicator still persist across seasons?
1. This can be difficult to determine for some indicators and may be specific to climatic region (in terms of persistence of vegetation) and history of land use or other natural disturbances.
2. Chapter 2, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 of the OHWM field manual describes each indicator in detail and provides examples of areas where indicators are difficult to interpret.
d. Weigh body of evidence:
i. Combine weights: integrate the weighted line of evidence (relevance, strength, reliability) of each indicator. ii. For each of the observed indicators, which are more heavily weighted? Where do high value indicators co-occur along the stream reach? Do they co-occur at a similar elevation along the banks relative to water surface (or channel bed if there is no water). iii. On datasheet, select the indicators used to identify the OHWM. Information in Chapter 2 of the OHWM field manual provides descriptions of specific indicators which can assist in putting these in context and determining relevance, strength, and relieability. e. Take photographs of indicators and attach a log using either page 2 of datasheet or another method of logging photos. i. Annotate photos with descriptions of indicators.
"Landscape context from Step 1 can help
determine the relevance, strength, and reliability
of the indicators observed in the field.
*Information in Chapter 2 of the OHWM field manual
provides information on specific indicators which can
assist in putting these in context and determining
relevance, strength, and reliability.
Step 4 Is additional information needed? Are other resources needed to support the lines of evidence observed in the field? a. If additional resources are needed, then repeat steps 3a and 3b for the resources selected in Step 1 of assembling, weighting, and weighing evidence collected from online resources. Chapter 5 of the OHWM field manual provides information on using online resources. b. Any data collected from online tools have strengths and weaknesses. Make sure these are clear when determining relevance, strength, and reliability of the remotely collected data. Clearly describe why other resources were needed to support the lines of evidence observed in the field, as well as the relevance, strength, and reliability of the supporting data and/or resources. c. Attach any remote data and data analysis to the datasheet.
Step 5
Describe rationale for location of OHWM:
a. Why do the combination of indicators represent the OHWM? b. If there are multiple possibilites for the OHWM, explain why there are two (or more) possibilities. Include any relevant discussion on why specific indicators were not included in the final decision. c. If needed, add additional site notes on page 2 of the datasheet under Step 5.
ENG FORM 6250, SEP 2021
RAPID
U S Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R.
SHEET
From Approved-
OMB No. 0710-OHWM
Expires: xx-mar-xxxx
The public
reviewing
nformation.
Services,
law, no
number.
AGENCY DISCLOSURE NOTICE
reporting burden for this collection of information, 0710-OHWM, is estimated to average 30 minutes Instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing Send comments regarding the burden estimate or burden reduction suggestions to the Department at wtmniscaleralthribxsid-ciciddeformali.ort cpllgctiattsrimail.mil. Respondents should be aware person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not per response, including the time for
and reviewing the collection of
of Defense, Washington Headquarters
that notwithstanding any other provision of
display a currently valid OMB control
Project
ID $: 21501 Site Name: Beaumont MDP Line 2
Date and Time: 1/14/2025, I030AM
Location
(Iat/long): 33.921353N 1 I6963417W Investigator(s): Heather Madera and Austin Burke
Step
1 Site
Check
gage
climatic
aerial
overview from remote
boxes for online
and online resources
resources used
LiDAR
imagery
topographic maps
to
evaluate site:
geologic maps
land use maps
Other:
Describe land use and
Were there any recent extreme
Survey Area receives
events that exit the
portion of the site.
flow conditions from online resources.
events (floods or drought)?
water through flooding
culvert in the southern
i
.
data .
`
data Xsatellite
photos
V
i�
i Step 2
The area
amount
Site conditions during field assessment. First look for changes in channel shape, depositional and erosional vegetation and sediment type, size, density, and distribution. Make note of natural or man-made disturbances channel form, such as bridges, riprap, landslides, rockfalls etc. around the southern culvert is heavily disturbed. The hillside shows some signs of sediment and debris directly outside of the culvert. OHWM is clear as it exits features, and changes in ,r
that would affect flow and
of erosion_ There is an excess
the Project boundary.
Step 3
Check the boxes next to the indicators used to identify the location of the OHWM.
OHWM is at a transition point, therefore some indicators that are used to determine location may be the drop -down menu next to each indicator, select the appropriate location of the indicator by just above 'a' the OHWM,
OHWM. Go to page 2 to describe overall rationale for location of OHWM, write any additional observations, just below and above the OHWM. From
selecting either just below 'b', at 'x', or
and to attach a photo log.
erosional bedload indicators
(e g , obstacle marks, scour, a
smoothing, etc)
Secondary channels:
Geomorphic
indicators
(�
I
Break
in slope: x
on the bank
undercut bank
bottom b
Other:
Channel
bar: b
shelving on bar
4 (berms)
unvegetated b
vegetation transition
(go to veg indicators)
sediment transition
(go to sed indicators)
upper lint of deposition
on bar
bedforms and other
transport evidence:
deposition bedload indicators
(e g , rmbncated clasts,
gravel sheets. etc )
bedforms a ofs,
( g '
nftfes, steps, etc ):
I��
V `
Sediment
indicators
Xvalley
X
Soil
Changes
Mudcracks:
Changes
distribution:
development:
transition
upper
silt deposits:
soil
b
in character of soil:
b
in particle -sized
from to
I Shelving:
shelf at top of bank
natural levee
man-made berms or levees
other
berms
I
X
k,"lnstream
bedload
b ❑
2 b
limit of sand sired particles
roots below
layer X
.
Vegetation
Indicators
Exposed
i
Ancillary
indicators
N/1
(t//N
Wrackinglpresence
of x
litter
of lame wood:
litter disturbed or
away:
staink !i:
cleats or bedrock:
EI
Leaf
viashed
Vegetation
and/or
b
Water
❑
Weathered
Other
Area
observed indicators? Describe:
is disturbed and gets a an excess amount of sediment and debris that flows through the culvert.
ENG FORM 6250, SEP 2021
PREVIp ISRI jSOLETE.
Project ID*: 21501
Step 4 Is additional Information needed to support this determination? 0 Yea Fl No If yes, describe and attach information to datasheet:
1 Step 5 Describe rationale for location of OHWM
There is a distinct cut in bank as waters are directed southeast through the culvert. The inundation is visible through aerial imagery. Most of the area below the OHWM is bare ground and leaf litter. There is a large amount of sediment and debris in the bed of the channel. OHWM is approximately 21 feet wide and the B2B is approximately 106 feet wide.
Additional observations or notes
Attach a photo log
Photo log
of the site. Use the table below, or attach separately. attached? Yes No if no, explain why not:
List photographs and include descriptions in the table below.
Number photographs in the order that they are taken. Attach photographs and include annotations of features.
Photo
Number
Photograph description
ENG FORM 6250, SEP 2021
Pape 2 of
OPIWM Field Mantifk:allon Dealhost Inslrucfiani And FIaId Pfoceduro Step 1
Step 2
Step 3a
Site overview from remote and online resources Complete Step 1 prior to sate visit.
Online Resources: Identify what information is available for the site. Check boxes on datasheet next to the resources used to assess this site,
e. gage data
b. aerial photos
c. satellite imagery
d. LIDAR
e. topogiaphIc maps
f geologic maps
g. land use maps
h climatic dote (precipitation and temperature)
landscape context: Use ttte online resources to put the site in the context of the surrounding landscape. n Note on the datasheet under Step 1:
I Overall land use and change if known
I Recent extreme events if known (e g., flood, drought, landslides, debris flows, wildfires) b. Consider the following to Inform weighting of evidence observed during field visit a. What physical characteristics are likely to be observed in specific environments? ii. Was there a recent flood or drought? Are you expecting to see recently formed or obscured indicators? How will land use affect specific stream characteristics? How natural is the hydrologic regime? How stable has the landscape been over the last year, decade, century?
Site conditions during the field assessment (assemble evidence) a. Identify the assessment area.
b. Walk up and down the assessment area noting all
the potential OHWM Indicators.
c. Note broad trends in channel shape, vegetation,
and sediment charactenstics.
i. Is this a single thread or multi -thread system?
is this a stream -wetland complex?
ii. Are there any secondary and/or floodplain channels? in. Are there obvious man-made alterations to the system? iv. Are there man-made (e.g., bndges, dams, culverts) or natural structures (e.g„ bedrock outcrops, Large Wood
jams) that will influence or control flow?
List ev idencc
d.
e.
Look for signs of recurring ftuviai action.
i. Where does the flow converge on the landscape?
ii, Are there signs of fluvial action (sediment sorting, bedforms, etc.) at the convergence zone?
Look for indicators on both banks. if the opposite bank is not accessible, then look across the channel at the bank.
in Step 2 of the datasheet describe any adjacent land use or flow conditions that may influence interpretation of each fine of evidence,
i. What land use and flow conditions may be affecting your ability to observe indicators at the site?
lf- What recent extreme events may have caused changes to the site and affected your ability to observe indicators?
Assemble evidence by checking the boxes next to each line of evidence:
a. It needed, use a separate scratch datasheet
to check boxes next to possible indicators,
or check boxes of possible indicators in
pencil and use pen for final decision.
b. If using tillable form, then follow the
instructions for filling in the fillable form.
Context is important when assembling evidence For instance, pool development may n indicator of interest on the bed of a dry stream, but may not be a useful indicator to take note of in a flowing stream On the other hand, if the pool is found rn a secondary channel adjacent to the man channel, rt could provide a line of evidence fora minimum elevator of high flows Therefore, consider the site context when deciding which indicators provide evidence for identifying the ©NWM Explain reasoning in Step 5 Questions to consider while making observations and listing evidence at a site:
Geomorphic indicators
Where are the breaks in slope?
Are there identifiable banks?
Is there an easily identifiable
top of bank?
Are the banks actively eroding?
Are the banks undercut?
Are the banks armored?
Is the channel confined by
the surrounding hiiislopes?
Are there natural or man-made
berms and levees?
Are there fluvial terraces?
Are there channel bars?
Sediment and soil indicators
Where does evidence of
soli formation appear?
Are there mudcracks present?
Is there evidence of sediment
sorting by grain size?
Are the following features of fluvial transport present? Evidence of emsron obstacle marks, scour, armoring
Bedforms, riffles, pools, steps, knickpointsrheadi uts
Evidence of depositionimbncated clasts, gravel sheets. etc.
Vegetation indicators
Where are the significant transitions in
vegetation species, density, and age?
is there vegetation growing on the channel bed?
if no, how long does it take for the non -tolerant
vegetation to establish relative to how often flows
occur in the channel?
Where are the significant transitions in
vegetation?
is the vegetation tolerant of flowing water?
Has any vegetation been fattened by flowing
water?
Ancillary indicators
is there organic litter
present?
is there any leaf litter
disturbed or washed
away?
is there large wood
deposition?
Is there evidence of
water staining?
In some cases, it may be helpful to explain wary an indicator was NOT at the OHWM elevation, but found above or below. It cavn also be usiAal 1O note if specific indicators (e.g., vegetation) are NOT present. kat lstsiaNripa, note if the site has no clear vegetation zonatlon-
ENG FORM 6250, SEP 2021
of
Of11/VM Field Identification Dateshoet Instructions and Field Procedure Step 3b Weight each line of ev l rice and weigh body of evidence Weight each indicator by considering Its importance based upon:
a Relevance:
i Is this indicator left by tow, high, or extreme flows? Tips on how to assess the indicator rvfative to type of blow:
Consider the elevation of the indicator relative fo the channel bed What is the cuurent flow levet based on season or nearby gages? 'Information in Chapter 2 of the OHWM field manual Consider the elevation of the indicator relative to the current' flow provides information on specific indicators which can assist in putting these in context and determining
ft the stream is currently at base/km and Indicator is adjacent to that, relevance, strength, and reliability. then it rs .likely a low flow indicator The difference between high and extreme flow indicators can sometimes be difficult to determine n. Did recent extreme events and/or land use affect this indicator? 1 Recent floods may have left many extreme flow indicators, or temporarily altered channel form.
Other resources will likely be needed to support any OHWM identification al this site. Field evidence of the OHM may have to wait for the site to recover from the recent blood. 2 Droughts may cause field evidence of OHWM to be obscured, because there has been an extended time since the last high flow event There can be overgrowth of vegetation or deposition of material from surrounding landscape that can obscure indicators
3. Both man-made (e g., dams, construction, mining activities, urbanization, agriculture, grazing) and natural (e,lg„ fires, roods, debris flows, beaver dams) disturbances can all atter how indicators are expected to appear at a site. Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the OHWM field manual provides specific case -studies that can help in interpreting evidence at these sdes. b. Strength:
i Is this indicator persistent across the landscape?
1. Look up and downstream and across the channel to see if you see the same indicator at multiple locations. 2 Does the indicator occur M the same elevation as other indicators? c. Reliability:
is this Indicator persistent rm the landscape over bent? Me this indicator sell persist across seasons? 1 This can be difficult to determine for some indicators and may be specific to climatic region (in terms of persistence of vegetation) and history of land use or other natural disturbances
2 Chapter 2, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 of the OHWM field manual describes each indicator in detail and provides examples of areas where indicators are difficult to interpret.
d. Weigh body of evidence:
i. Combine weights integrate the weighted line of evidence (relevance, strength. reliability) of each indicator.
N. For each of the observed indicators, which are more heavily weighted? Where do high value indicators co-occur along the stream reach? Do they co-occur at a similar elevation along the banks relative to water surface (or channel bed if there is no water). ill. On datasheet, select the indicators used to identify the OHWM. Information in Chapter 2 of the OHWM field manual provides descriptions of specific indicators which can assist in putting these in context and determining relevance, strength, and relieability. e. Take photographs of indicators and attach a fog using either page 2 of datasheet or another method of togging photk,s.
I Annotate photos with descriptions of indicators.
'Landscape conteirt from Step t can help
determine the relevance, strength, and reliability
of the indicators observed in the field.
Step 4 Is additional information needed? Are other resources needed to support the lines of evidence observed ui the field? a. If additional resources are needed, then repeal steps 3a and 3b for the resources selected in Step 1 of assembling, weighting, and weighing evidence collected from online resources. Chapter 5 of the OF1WM field manual provides Information on using online resources b. Any data collected from online tools have strengths and weaknesses. Make sure these are clear when determining relevance, strens" and reliability of the remotely collected data. Clearly describe why other resources were needed to support the tines of evidence observed in the field, as well as the relevance, strength, and reliability of the supporting data and/or resources. c. Attach any remote data and data analysts to the datasheet.
Step 5
Describe rationale for location of OHWM:
a Why do the combination of indicators represent the OHWM? b If there are multiple possibilitee for the O]HWM, explain why there are two (or more) possibilities. include any relevant discussion on why specific indicators were not included in the final decision. c. If needed, add additional site notes on page 2 of the datasheet under Step 5 ENG FORM 6250, SEP 2021
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region
Project/Site: Beaumont MDP Line 2
Applicant/Owner: City
City/County: Beaumont/Riverside County Sampling Date: 10/03/25 State: CA Sampling Point: 2
Investigator(s): Austin Burke and Alisa Muniz Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: 33.921344N
Soil Map Unit Name: Terrace escarpments
Long: 116.963400W Datum:
NWI classification: Riverine
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes r✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Yes
No ✓
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Heavy flooding has made this area problematic. See below.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
1. Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremontii) 10 X FACW
2. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
3. 4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7 (A/B)
10 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Mule Fat (Baccharis salicifolia) 15 X FAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. White Sage (Artemisia apiana) 5
3. California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) 30 X
OBL species x 1 =
4. Giant reed (Arundo donax) 3 FACW
FACW species 13 x 2 = 26
5. FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
53 = Total Cover
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
UPL species x 5 =
1. Western ragweed ,Ambrosia psilostachya 10 FACU
Column Totals: 38 (A) 111 (B)
2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.92
3 4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
✓ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0'
— Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
✓ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
—
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5. 6.
7. $
10 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes V No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 60 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:
This area is problematic. This portion of the Survey Area is heavily disturbed. There is an excess amount of sediment and debris that has built up around the culvert within the Survey Area. Although wetland vegetation species are present and clear channelization of the drainage occurs, hydric soils were not found within the excess of sediment. n... - ccn . s n.4n
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features
the absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
0-1 7.5 YR 6/4 100
fine sand Excess sediment built up
1-14 7.5 YR 5/4 100
coarse san Small amount of moisture in soil
14-18 7.5 YR 4/6 100
sandy clay More moisture in soil
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5)
Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) ✓ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✓ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes V No Depth (inches): 1-18
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
There is a build up of sediment and debris within the Survey Area right outside of the culvert which makes this area problematic but the area should still be considered a MSHCP Riparian Habitat. MSHCP Riparian Habitat is also located further downstream of the Project site as it connects to Potrero Creek.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region
Project/Site: Beaumont MDP Line 2
Applicant/Owner: City
City/County: Beaumont/Riverside County Sampling Date: 10/03/25 State: CA Sampling Point: 3
Investigator(s): Austin Burke and Alisa Muniz Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: 33.922574N
Soil Map Unit Name: Terrace escarpments
Long: 116.964379W Datum:
NWI classification: NHD Stream
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes r✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Yes
No ✓
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Heavy flooding has made this area problematic. See below.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
1. Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremontii) 5 FACW
2. Arroyo Willow (Salix lasiolepis) 20 X FACW
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
3. 4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33.4 (A/B)
25 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Giant reed (Arundo donax 8 FACW
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. 3.
OBL species x 1 =
4,
FACW species 33 x 2 = 66
5. FAC species x 3 =
8 = Total Cover
FACU species 3 x 4 = 12
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
UPL species 20 x 5 = 100
1. Western ragweed ,Ambrosia psilostachya 3 FACU
Column Totals: 56 (A) 178 (B)
2. Star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) 2
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.17
3. Ripgut (Bromus diandrus) 25 X
4. Brome (Bromus madritensis) 20 X UPL
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ Dominance Test is >50%
_ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0'
_ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5. 6.
7. 8.
50 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No ✓
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:
This area is problematic. This portion of the Survey Area is heavily disturbed. There is an excess amount of sediment and debris that has built up throughout the channel. The area is dominated mostly by weedy vegetation with a patch of willow and reed but not enough to be considered hydrophytic vegetation. Although some riparian vegetation species are present and clear channelization of the drainage occurs, hydric soils were not found within the excess of sediment. n......, cry .: cl-i n
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features
the absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
0-1 7.5 YR 6/4 100
fine sand Excess sediment built up
1-4 7.5 YR 5/6 100
coarse san Small amount of moisture in soil
4-18 7.5 YR 4/6 100
sandy clay More moisture in soil
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5)
Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) ✓ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✓ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes V No Depth (inches): 1-18
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
There is a build up of sediment and debris within the Survey Area which makes this area problematic. There are mature riparian plants present but not enough to be considered hydrophytic vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region
Project/Site: Beaumont MDP Line 2
Applicant/Owner: City
City/County: Beaumont/Riverside County Sampling Date: 10/03/25 State: CA Sampling Point: 4
Investigator(s): Austin Burke and Alisa Muniz Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: 33.924383N
Soil Map Unit Name: Terrace escarpments
Long: 116.964911W Datum:
NWI classification: NHD Stream
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes r✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ✓ Soil ✓ or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No ✓ Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Yes
No ✓
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Heavy flooding has made this area problematic. See below.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) % Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
1. Goodding's willow (Salix gooddingii) 40 X FACW
2. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
3. 4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33.3 (A/B)
40 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Giant reed (Arundo donax 15 FACW
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. 3.
OBL species x 1 =
4,
FACW species 55 x 2 = 110
5. FAC species x 3 =
15 = Total Cover
FACU species 15 x 4 = 60
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
UPL species 25 x 5 = 125
1. Western ragweed ,Ambrosia psilostachya 15 FACU
Column Totals: 95 (A) 295 (B)
2. Star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) 5
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.10
3. Ripgut (Bromus diandrus) 30 X
4. Brome (Bromus madritensis) 25 X UPL
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ Dominance Test is >50%
_ Prevalence Index is ≤3.0'
_ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5. shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) 5
6. 7.
8. 80 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No ✓
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks:
This area is problematic. This portion of the Survey Area is heavily disturbed. There is an excess amount of sediment and debris that has built up throughout the channel. The area is dominated mostly by weedy vegetation with a patch of willow and reed but not enough to be considered hydrophytic vegetation. Although some riparian vegetation species are present and clear channelization of the drainage occurs, hydric soils were not found within the excess of sediment. n......, crn .: n^ ri
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: 4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm Depth Matrix Redox Features
the absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
0-1 7.5 YR 6/4 100
fine sand Excess sediment built up
1-18 7.5 YR 5/6 100
coarse san Small amount of moisture in soil
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5)
Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) ✓ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✓ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes V No Depth (inches): 1-18
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
There is a build up of sediment and debris within the Survey Area which makes this area problematic. There are mature riparian plants present but not enough to be considered hydrophytic vegetation and there are no hydric soils.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
DETERMINATION OF BIOLOGICALLY
EQUIVALENT OR SUPERIOR PRESERVATION
AND EQUIVALENCY FINDINGS FOR THE
BEAUMONT MDP LINE 2 PROJECT
BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
EXP
1650 Iowa Avenue Suite 110
Riverside, CA 92507
04, CHAMBERS
/qx% GROUP
Prepared by:
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
3151 Airway Ave, Suite F208
Costa Mesa, California 92626
(949) 261-5414
February 2025
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1.0 — INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 PURPOSE 3
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION 3
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
SECTION 2.0 - METHODS 5
2.1 MSHCP ASSESSMENT 5
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.3 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 5
2.4 MSHCP PLAN REQUIREMENTS 5
SECTION 3.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS 7
3.1 MSHCP ASSESSMENT 7
3.1.1 Burrowing Owl 7
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY 7
3.2.1 Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub 10
3.2.2 Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series 10
3.2.3 Ruderal 10
3.2.4 Ornamental 11
3.2.5 Bare Ground 11
3.2.6 Developed 11
3.3 WILDLIFE SPECIES 11
3.4 SOILS 11
3.5 HYDROLOGY AND HYDROLOGIC CONNECTIVITY 12
3.6 CDFW/MSHCP RIPARIAN HABITAT 12
SECTION 4.0 - RIPARIAN/RIVERINE IMPACT ANALYSIS 19
4.1 POTENTIAL USACE JURISDICTION 19
4.2 POTENTIAL RWQCB JURISDICTION 19
4.3 POTENTIAL CDFW JURISDICTION 20
4.4 MSHCP RIPARIAN 20
SECTION 5.0 - PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES AND MITIGATION MEASURES TO PROTECT RIPARIAN/RIVERINE RESOURCES 21
SECTION 6.0 - MITIGATION MEASURES TO PROTECT MSHCP COVERED SPECIES 25 SECTION 7.0 - DETERMINATION OF BIOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR EQUIVALENT OR PRESERVATION 27 SECTION 8.0 - REFERENCES 28
Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
APPENDIX A — LIST OF PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
APPENDIX B - LIST OF ANIMAL SPECIES DETECTED
APPENDIX C — BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION REPORT
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Acreages of Potential Jurisdictional Waters that Occur Within the Impact Areas of the Project Site 19
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity Map 4
Figure 2: RCA Western Riverside County Criteria Area Cells 8 Figure 3: Vegetation Communities 9
Figure 4: Watersheds 14
Figure 5: Groundwater Basins 15
Figure 6: FEMA Flood Hazard Zones 16
Figure 7: Waters Database 17
Figure 8: Jurisdictional Delineation Results 18
Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
Chambers Group, Inc. (Chambers Group) was retained by EXP (Client) to prepare a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) and equivalency findings to document that the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2 Project (Project) is consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP 2025), Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP 2025).
The purpose of the DBESP report is to discuss the functions and values of the riparian/riverine areas and species habitat in the Project area, to describe the proposed Project, and to provide a finding that, through a combination of project design, mitigation measures and avoidance, the Project would achieve an equivalent or superior preservation of the riparian/riverine areas of the site as compared to the Project site being left undisturbed.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located along the existing right-of-way (ROW) 1) along 6th Street from Chestnut to Pennsylvania Avenue; 2) along Pennsylvania Avenue from 6th Street to 1st Street; and 3) along 1st Street from Pennsylvania to an existing earthen channel, within the City of Beaumont (City), in Riverside County.
The Project is located in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Beaumont, California 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle. Land uses around the proposed Project consist of developed and undeveloped parcels, as well as open space. East 6th Street is lined with commercial development. Pennsylvania Avenue features commercial 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 elevation at the Project site ranges from 2,550 to 2,610 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Maps of the Project Location and Project Vicinity are provided in Figure 1.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC) has partnered with the City to provide funding for the design and construction of the Project. In July 1983, RCFC developed a 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 the undeveloped areas become urbanized, flooding damage is expected to increase. Therefore, the installation of drainage systems is required to safely convey storm runoff through the concerned areas with minimal interruption to public services.
Particularly, the installation of a channel would eliminate flood concerns for properties between 1st Street and Interstate 10 (I-10).
The construction of approximately 5,000 linear feet of reinforced concrete pipe (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.
Chambers Group, Inc. 3
21501
E 1st St
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2117/2025 149 PM Author: pcarbs tx‘ GROUP
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
SECTION 2.0 - METHODS
2.1 MSHCP ASSESSMENT
The study was initiated with a review of relevant literature and previous environmental documents conducted in the region describing the biological resources within and adjacent to the Project site. As required by the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and during the initial property assessment process, all Project site APNs were searched using the online Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Tool to determine if the property falls within a "Criteria Area" and if additional surveys for narrow endemic/criteria area plant species or wildlife not adequately covered by the MSHCP may be required. In addition, regional floral and faunal field guides were utilized in the identification of species.
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Chambers Group conducted a literature review of previous reports, aerial photographs, and topographic maps of the Project location and surrounding areas. Aerial maps were reviewed prior to conducting general surveys in order to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features and water bodies that may be considered riparian/riverine habitat. The MSHCP (RCA 2025) was referenced for the APNs associated with the Project site. In addition, Chambers Group reviewed the Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Report (CGI 2025) prepared for this Project.
2.3 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
The Project site was surveyed in January 2025, by Chambers Group biologists Heather Madera and Austin Burke. Weather conditions included temperatures ranging from 46 to 58 degrees Fahrenheit, with 0 percent cloud cover, and no precipitation. Wind speeds ranged from 12 to 20 miles per hour. The purpose of the field survey was to document the existing habitat conditions, obtain plant and animal species information, view the surrounding uses, assess the potential for state and federal waters, and assess the potential for sensitive species and nesting habitat. The entire Project site was surveyed. All species observed were recorded. Global Positioning System (GPS) waypoints were taken to delineate specific habitat types, species locations, and any other information that would be useful for the assessment of the property.
2.4 MSHCP PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP describes the process through which protection of riparian/riverine areas, riparian bird species, vernal pools, and fairy shrimp species will occur within the MSHCP Area. Regardless of whether the site is located within any Criteria Cells, Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas, or proposed Conservation Areas, and whether it is subject to the focused species surveys associated with those areas, all projects within the MSHCP area require an evaluation of potential impacts on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools and the protected species associated with those habitats.
Riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools are defined in the MSHCP as follows:
• Riparian/riverine areas include lands that contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens which occur close to, or which depend upon soil Chambers Group, Inc. 5
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
moisture from a nearby freshwater source; or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year.
• Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetland indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season, but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetland plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season.
When a site supports suitable riparian/riverine areas and/or vernal pool habitats for the wildlife species covered by the MSHCP listed below, focused surveys are required to determine their presence or absence from the site.
Vernal Pool Invertebrates
• Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae) • Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni)
• vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
Riparian Birds
• least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
■ southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) ■ western yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Chambers Group, Inc. 6
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
SECTION 3.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 MSHCP ASSESSMENT
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 (Figure 2). Therefore, a subsequent Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS process) or Joint Project Review (JPR) are not required. Furthermore, the site is not in an amphibian survey area or a mammal survey area. The site does fall within a burrowing owl survey area and narrow endemic plant survey area which includes Marvin's onion (Allium marvinii) and Many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) (RCA 2025). Therefore, additional surveys for these species may be required.
3.1.1 Burrowing Owl
The Project site lies within a burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) survey area. This California species of special concern is one of the 146 species covered by RCA's MSHCP. Nesting in underground burrows typically abandoned by other animals such as ground squirrels, the burrowing owl prefers open, flat, grassland habitat, a factor that has led to declining numbers in the last 20 years as development has progressed. Owls also tend to nest in the same general location each year (RCA 2025). Under federal laws protecting migratory birds, both the owls and their burrows are protected. Mitigation includes relocating birds that have been displaced and allowing birds to relocate into new burrows in a safe location.
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY
The Project site is relatively flat and has an average elevation of 2,580 feet amsl. The surrounding land consists of developed and undeveloped parcels, as well as open space. East 6th Street is lined with commercial developments. Pennsylvania Avenue features commercial 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. Land uses in the vicinity include open space, residential, walkways, and transportation.
Four Vegetation Communities and Other Areas were mapped within the Project site, including Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub, Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series, Ornamental Landscaping, Ruderal, Bare Ground, and Developed. Maps of the vegetation communities can be found in Figure 3. A complete list of plant species observed during the survey effort is provided in Appendix A.
Chambers Group, Inc. 7
21501
3 Brookside Ave
Oak Valley Golf
Club
w 935
940
1015
allcv Fo
y
W 4th St
2819 ft
V
C
z
a,
E
w
a,
E
a
E 13th St
E 12th St
to
a,
0 0
z
High St
C
Grand Ave
a,
a
a,
-C
v
Cougar Way
Oak Valley Pkwy
E 9th St
Beaumont E 8th St
79 1410
1413
1502
1505
2853 ft
1412
1512
1404
1507
1405
1508
1499
a,
s
Cr
,n
E 6th St
Highland
Springs
Country Club
Highland Springs Ave
E 1st St
Potrero Blvd
1500
any s6ui.idS puely6IH S
1501
Sao
Gorgon/0
Sun Lakes
0'
Sun Lakes
Country Club
1598
1600
1601
1599
1597
1593
1594
1595
1698
1697
1696
1695
1694
1689
1690
1693
1794
San GE
Pa
Pass
1609
.1795
1790
1791 co
1792
1788
1786
1787
1789
1710
= Project Location
Criteria Cell
Figure 2
Beaumont MDP Line 2
RCA Western Riverside County Criteria Area Cells
N
0 0.38 0.75 1.5
Paae X968 of 910
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd — CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2114120252:35 PM Author: pcaroc % k\\ GROUP
xrk ANN,
Name:21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd CHAMBERS
Pint Date: 2/14/20253:00 PM Author: pcaios GROUP
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
3.2.1 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 (Eriogonum fasciculatum) or yucca (Hesperoyucca whipplei) is dominant or co -dominant in the shrub canopy in cismontane stands with California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), brittlebush sunflower (Encelia californica), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), white sage (Salvia apiana), or black sage (Salvia mellifera).
Herbaceous layer is variable and may be grassy (Sawyer et al. 2009). Disturbed communities are characterized by factors that have degraded the habitat quality such as human activities (OHV use, trash, disking or mowing), fire, and/or a cover of non-native species that is greater than or equal to 25 percent of the overall cover.
Areas with Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub are present within 0.04 acres of the Project site surrounding the hillsides around the culvert located on the southern end of the Survey Area. The area looks to be regularly maintained and mowed. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community included: California buckwheat, deerweed, and cudweed (Pseudognaphalium sp.).
Non-native species included: ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua) and shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).
3.2.2 Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series
The Fremont Cottonwood Series, as described by Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf (1995), is dominated by the Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), forming an open, intermittent or continuous canopy of trees that are typically less than 85 feet in height. This series often exists along the banks and terraces of riparian corridors and floodplains subject to high -intensity flooding and low -gradient soil deposition.
Areas with Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series vegetation are present within 0.01 acres of the Project site surrounding the culvert on the southern end of the Survey Area. This area is heavily disturbed with an excess amount of sediment and debris from flooding events. Native plant species found on the Project site typical of this vegetation community included: Fremont cottonwood, mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and California buckwheat. Non-native species included: giant reed (Arundo donax), Russian thistle (Salsola australis), ripgut grass, wild oat, and shortpod mustard.
3.2.3 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.
Chambers Group, Inc. 10
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
Areas with Ruderal vegetation are present within 3.35 acres of the Project site in the open space vacant lot and on either side of the sidewalks located along Pennsylvania Avenue and E 1st Street. Non-native species included: shortpod mustard, Russian -thistle, ripgut grass, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis) and yellow star -thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Native plant species found sparsely scattered throughout included: turkey -mullein, telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), and jimson weed (Datura wrightii).
3.2.4 Ornamental
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 is present along the middle of E 1st Street and a small portion along the sidewalk located near the culvert that exits the Project site. Plant species found on the Project site typical of this community include star jasmine (Trachelospermum jasminoides) and Indian hawthorn (Rhaphiolepis indica). There are 0.09 acres of Ornamental Landscaping present within the Project site.
3.2.5 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 on the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue. This vacant lot mapped as Bare Ground covers approximately 1.32 acres of the Project site.
3.2.6 Developed
Developed areas are areas that have been altered by humans and now display man-made structures such as houses, paved roads, buildings, parks, and other maintained areas.
Developed areas are present within the Project site and make up approximately 7.74 acres. The Project site encompasses E 6t" Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, and E 1st street which are paved roads that run parallel with the proposed construction activities, along with sidewalks.
3.3 WILDLIFE SPECIES
Eight species of wildlife were documented on site or within the vicinity of the site during the field effort (Appendix B). None of the wildlife species covered by the MSHCP were found within the Project site or immediate vicinity during the survey. Furthermore, no sign or active burrows for burrowing owl were observed during the site visit.
3.4 SOILS
None of the soils present near the riparian areas found at the Project site are classified as hydric soils. The Project site contains four soil types (USDA 2025):
• Ramona sandy loam (RaB2), 2 to 5 percent slopes
• Ramona sandy loam (RaB3), 0 to 5 percent slopes
• Ramona sandy loam (RaC3), 5 to 8 percent slopes
Chambers Group, Inc. 11.
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
• Terrace escarpments (TeG)
3.5 HYDROLOGY AND HYDROLOGIC CONNECTIVITY
The Project is located within the Potrero Creek Watershed (HUC 12- 180702020201) of the Upper Santa Ana Valley groundwater basin (USGS 2025a) in Riverside County, California (Figures 4, Figure 5). The Potrero Creek Watershed in Beaumont is bordered to the north by the San Bernardino Mountains and to the south by the San Jacinto Mountains, to the west by the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Mountains, and to the east by the Little San Bernardino Mountains. Potrero Creek flows south/southwest for 5 miles until it joins the San Jacinto River near California State Route 79, which ultimately drains into Lake Elsinore. The headwaters of the San Jacinto River are in the San Bernardino Mountains. Figure 6 provides the location of the flood zones identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) runs through the Survey Area. The SFHA 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).
A feature mapped in the NWI as an ephemeral drainage runs through the southern end of the Project site as shown in Figure 7, Waters Databases Map (USFWS 2025). The field delineation confirmed the presence of the drainage. Figure 8 provides the location of the water feature delineated within the Survey Area following the field investigations. A total of 277 linear feet of ephemeral drainage was mapped within the Survey Area. The drainage enters a culvert on the north side of 1st Street and goes underground through the Survey Area for 262 feet when it exits the culvert on the south side of the street. The drainage remains above ground for 15 more feet until it exits the Project site and flows above ground for approximately
0.65 miles until emptying into Potrero Creek, where it continues to flow south/southwest eventually terminating in the San Jacinto River, a TNW. The drainage flows via surface hydrology primarily from road runoff and flooding during seasonal rainfall, as well as nuisance water from the surrounding residential neighborhood. Although there was no water present during the field survey, several indicators of hydrology were present at the time of the field delineation. Hydrological characteristics within the drainage included: break in the bank slope, mud cracks, exposed roots, and vegetation matted down or bent. The limits of the OHWM were delineated visually by change in break in slope and change of vegetation within the drainage. The OHWM measured approximately 21 feet wide, and bank -to -bank measured 106 feet wide, both narrowing as they exit the Project boundary flowing downstream. In addition, hydrophytic vegetation was present within and outside of the Survey Area. However, hydric soils could not be confirmed within the drainage (i.e., presence of excess sediment and debris buildup from flood events surrounding the culvert); therefore, the Project site contains two wetland parameters.
3.6 CDFW/MSHCP RIPARIAN HABITAT
No NWI mapped wetlands were identified within the Project site. However, Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series vegetation community occurs within a small portion of the Project site just outside of the culvert and downstream of the Survey Area. This area is heavily disturbed with a buildup of sediment and debris. The vegetation in the area consists of Fremont cottonwood, mule fat, giant reed, California buckwheat, and other non-native species. Several soil test pits were dug during the survey within the riparian area. The portion of the drainage within the Project boundary is directly below the outlet of the culvert and thus contains an excessive buildup of sediment and debris. While several soil pits were taken in the area, no hydric soils were observed within the Project boundary. In addition, no hydric soils were identified during the database soil search. Although the presence of hydric soils could not be confirmed, hydrophytic vegetation is present and evidence of hydrology was observed; therefore, the area can be Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
12
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
considered a wetland under CDFW jurisdiction with only two of the three wetland parameters present.
Thus, this riparian area may be considered to be a wetland area with problematic soils.
Because Riparian vegetation occurs within the channel, the drainage meets the MSHCP definition of Riverine. While the drainage does eventually connect to the San Jacinto River with portions considered a MSHCP Critical Habitat area, the Project site is 1.8 miles from a designated MSHCP conservation area and several miles north of San Jacinto River. The portion of the drainage that falls within the Project site is very small and the native vegetation within the Project boundaries is of marginal quality. Therefore, while flow from the drainage may contribute to the support of downstream habitat, the riparian vegetation 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. In addition, the riparian vegetation that occurs within the drainage onsite lacks the mature trees and dense vegetation required by the species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. None of these species were observed during the survey and they are not expected to occur within the Project area.
Because the Project site contains evidence of hydrology and riparian vegetation, this area would be considered under CDFW jurisdiction and an MSHCP Riparian area.
Chambers Group, Inc. 13
21501
l]I.G IIU five
ountry Cl/
circa A
Oak Valley Golf
Club
Qt
O
180702030401
Little San
Gorgonio Creek
W 4th St
2853 ft
•
180702020202
Laborde Canyon -San
Jacinto River
79 Beaumont
>
E
a
E 13th St
E 12th St
n
9th St >
ro
i79�
79 a
v
V
C gar Way
Oak Valley Pkvyy
E 8th St
6th St
Starlight Ave
E 6th St
E 1st St
1n80702020201
Potrero Creek
i
r f
ar
any s6ulad5 puely6IH S
181002010101
Smith Creek
°r9O/)/ P
a
kun Lakes
65/4,c/
Sun Lakes
ountry Club
Q Project Location
Q Watershed (HUC-12)
Figure 4
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Watersheds
0 0.25 0.5 1
Page rsrp4 of 910
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd — CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2114120252:35 PM Author: pcarbs GROUP
+rams nVe
Country Club
Oak Valley Golf
Club
UPPER SANTA
ANA VALLEY
Beaumont
Project Location
Groundwater Basin
Lherry Ave
Cougar Way
Oak Valley Pkwy
Starlight Ave
COACHELLA
VALLEY
Sao bUq/0
y/9/
S
N
0 0.25 0.5
1 Figure 5
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Groundwater Basins
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Ane 2.Mxd — CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2114120252:35 PM Author: pcarbs k\‘ GROUP
Zone AO
•
2623 ft
v
3 D
f0
n
rD
J
E 1st St
Mi
M
III Zone AO
iv
m
Iont
et
Rodeway Inn
Beaumont 1-10
Redwood St
Sunnyslope
Cemetery
CD
CD
fD
2nd st
1stSt
E 6th St
Project Location
FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
I= 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
MI Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
0 250 500 1,000
Figure 6
Beaumont MDP Line 2
FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2 --7.';•
%fit CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2114120252:35 PM Author: pcatlos \� GROUP
Page of 910
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2 — CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2117/20251:49 PM Author: pcatlos %9t\' GROUP
Project Location Soil Pit
A Culvert - StreamRiver
Jurisdictional Delineation
Bank to Bank
Ordiniary High Water Mark
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2/17/2025 1:49 PM Author: pcatlos t1\ GROUP
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
SECTION 4.0 - RIPARIAN/RIVERINE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Project site contains an ephemeral drainage that has 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 impacted by Project activities, they may be subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. The results of the Jurisdictional Delineation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project can be found in Appendix C. Table 1 provides a summary of acreages of Jurisdictional Waters and the potential impacts to waters that occur within the Project site.
Table 1. Summary of Acreages of Potential Jurisdictional Waters that Occur Within the Impact Areas of the Project Site
Potential Jurisdictional Waters
Permanent
Impact (Ac)
Permanent
Impact (Sq ft)
USACE Jurisdiction •
Total Non -Wetland Waters of the US
0.005
217.8
Total Wetland Waters of the US
NA
NA
RWQCB Jurisdiction i
Total Non -Wetland Waters of the
State
0 0
Total Wetland Waters of the State
0.005
217.8
CDFW Jurisdiction
Total Non -Wetland Waters
0.033
217.9
Total Wetland Waters
0.005
1,437.48
MSHCP Riparian
Total MSHCP Riparian
0.038
1,655.28
4.1 POTENTIAL USACE JURISDICTION
The USACE asserts jurisdiction over the San Jacinto River as a TNW. Therefore, USACE will likely take jurisdiction over the drainage that exits the Project site. The site lacks all 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 1. Total USACE jurisdictional acreage for the Project, as defined by the OHWMs, amounts to 0.005 acre of permanent impacts. A Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit may be required for this Project.
4.2 POTENTIAL RWQCB JURISDICTION
RWQCB jurisdiction includes all USACE jurisdictional areas, OHWMs, and any other features that influence surface or subsurface water quality within California. 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 two of the three wetland parameters. Therefore, a total of 0.005 acre of wetland waters of the State under the potential jurisdiction of the RWQCB occur in the Project site. The limits of RWQCB jurisdiction were Chambers Group, Inc. 19
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
defined by the OHWM and indicator features within the Project site. Therefore, a 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the RWQCB for this Project.
4.3 POTENTIAL CDFW JURISDICTION
There are 0.005 acre that have wetland vegetation and 0.033 acre within the Project site that have upland vegetated bank to bank within 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 drainage provides surface waters when water is present and would be considered State waters. Due to the presence of both hydrophytic vegetation and evidence of hydrology within this area, this drainage area would be considered a wetland. Direct impacts to the wetland vegetation is not expected, however if impacts occur as a result of Project activities, a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) would be required from CDFW for this Project.
4.4 MSHCP RIPARIAN
A total of 0.038 acre of vegetated streambed was mapped within the Project impact area. The riparian vegetation is heavily disturbed, lacking the mature forest and canopy required by the riparian species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. However, the drainage may help support native riparian vegetation south of the Project site. The drainage has connectivity to downstream MSHCP Conservation areas, thus may contribute to the 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 area, the City, as a Permittee to the MSHCP, has determined that this DBESP is warranted for this Project.
Chambers Group, Inc. 20
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
SECTION 5.0 - PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES AND MITIGATION MEASURES TO PROTECT
RIPARIAN/RIVERINE RESOURCES
The overall goal of the Project is to improve the drainage systems along the road to reduce flooding hazards to the surrounding properties of the Project site. In order to meet the goal and purpose of the Project, approximately 0.038 acre of vegetated streambed consisting of disturbed riparian vegetation will be removed. Therefore, complete avoidance of the riparian/riverine resources are not feasible.
The onsite drainage primarily functions to convey water from urban runoff and during heavy rain and flood events. Because the riverine habitat within the drainage feature contains disturbed riparian vegetation and lacks the mature trees and dense vegetation, it does not provide suitable habitat for species listed under the MSHCP Section 6.1.2 including least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow -billed cuckoo, or fairy shrimp. The loss of the onsite riverine habitat will not impact these species or their populations.
Direct impacts to the disturbed riparian area are anticipated to occur as a result of the Project. While the drainage does eventually connect to the San Jacinto River with portions considered a MSHCP Critical Habitat area, the Project site is 1.8 miles from a designated MSHCP conservation area and several miles north of San Jacinto River. The portion of the drainage that falls within the Project site is very small and the vegetation within the Project boundaries is of marginal quality. Therefore, while flow from the drainage may contribute to the support of downstream habitat, the riparian vegetation within the site likely does not contribute to the overall biological functions and values of downstream habitat. Project designs will also allow for the riparian area to continue to receive the same amount of flow after improvements and the riparian area will continue to receive runoff and nuisance flow from the surrounding area. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to occur to the MSHCP Riparian area outside of the Project site as a result of Project activities.
Although the functions and values of the existing drainage will be altered, the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures identified in this DBESP will provide biologically equivalent or superior functions and values in areas that will be protected by a conservation easement or other similar agreement. Potential downstream effects to existing or proposed conservation lands and/or conserved species are not expected when proposed mitigation measures are considered in conjunction with the Project. In addition, the Project is designed to avoid and minimize water pollution and erosion that occurs during heavy storm events, increase flood protection, and a net gain of surface water, which would result in an overall improvement to downstream habitat. The mitigation measures are described in detail below.
Mitigation Measure 1 —Riverine
The applicant will obtain all appropriate permits for impacts on USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional areas. Total USACE jurisdictional acreage for the Project, as defined by the OHWMs, amounts to 0.005 acre of permanent impacts. A Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit may be required for this Project.
A total of 0.005 acre of wetland waters of the State under the potential jurisdiction of the RWQCB occur in the Project site. Therefore, a 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the RWQCB for this Project. There are 0.005 acre that have wetland vegetation and 0.033 acre within the Project site that have upland vegetated bank to bank within the Project site that are potentially regulated by CDFW's Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement program. Therefore, a Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) is likely to be required from CDFW for this Project.
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
21
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
Mitigation Measure 2 — Construction Mitigation Measures The following Construction Minimization Measures (Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP) will be implemented during Project construction to minimize impacts on riparian/riverine resources and/or impacts on biological resources during construction: Plans for water pollution and erosion control will be prepared.
The plans will describe sediment and hazardous materials control, dewatering or diversion structures, fueling and equipment management practices, and use of plant material for erosion control. • Avoid work in riparian areas during most active breeding season; typically designated as March 1 to June 30 by the CDFW/MSHCP Guidelines. Disturbance is restricted to a minimum of 300 feet away from any active nest.
• Sediment and erosion control measures will be implemented until such time soils are determined to be successfully stabilized.
• Short-term stream diversions, if needed, will be accomplished by use of sandbags or other methods that will result in minimal instream impacts. Short-term diversions will consider effects on wildlife.
• Silt fencing or other sediment trapping materials will be installed at the downstream end of • construction activities to minimize the transport of sediments off -site. • Settling ponds where sediment is collected will be cleaned in a manner that prevents sediment from re-entering the stream or damaging/disturbing adjacent areas. Sediment from settling ponds will be removed to a location where sediment cannot re-enter the stream or surrounding drainage area. Care will be exercised during removal of silt fencing to minimize release of debris or sediment into streams.
• No erodible materials will be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks. • The footprint of disturbance will be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites will occur on pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. • Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas will be sited on non -sensitive upland habitat types with minimal risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or other sensitive habitat types. • The limits of disturbance, including the upstream, downstream and lateral extents, will be clearly defined and marked in the field. Monitoring personnel will review the limits of disturbance prior to initiation of construction activities.
• During construction, the placement of equipment within the stream or on adjacent banks or adjacent upland habitats occupied by covered species that are outside of the Project footprint will be avoided.
• Exotic species removed during construction will be properly handled to prevent sprouting or regrowth.
• Training of construction personnel will be provided.
• Ongoing monitoring and reporting will occur for the duration of the construction activity to ensure implementation of best management practices.
• When work is conducted during the fire season (as identified by the Riverside County Fire Department) adjacent to vegetation, appropriate firefighting equipment (e.g., extinguishers, shovels, water tankers) shall be available on the site during all phases of Project construction to help minimize the chance of human -caused wildfires. Shields, protective mats, and/or other fire preventative methods shall be used during grinding, welding, and other spark -inducing activities.
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
22
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
Personnel trained in fire hazards, preventative actions, and responses to fires shall advise contractors regarding fire risk from all construction -related activities. • Active construction areas shall be watered regularly to control dust and minimize impacts to adjacent vegetation.
• All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other toxic substances shall occur only in designated areas within the proposed grading limits of the Project site. These designated areas shall be clearly marked and located in such a manner as to contain runoff.
• No waste, dirt, rubble, or trash shall be deposited in the Conservation Area or on native habitat.
Mitigation Measure 3 — MSHCP Standard Best Management Practices The following Best Management Practices will be implemented during Project construction to minimize impacts on riparian/riverine resources and/or impacts on biological resources during construction:
• A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for project personnel prior to construction activities. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.
• Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via preexisting access routes to the greatest extent possible.
• The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.
• Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern.
• Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian bird species identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7.
• When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal in stream impacts. Silt fencing or other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments off site. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream. • Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities Chambers Group, Inc. 23
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, USFWS, CDFW, and RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. • Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. • The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities when working in identified BUOW habitat and any other sensitive areas to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.
• The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to preexisting contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.
• Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food -related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). • Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen.
Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities.
Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas.
The City shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs.
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
24
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
SECTION 6.0 - MITIGATION MEASURES TO PROTECT MSHCP COVERED SPECIES Although the functions and values of existing habitat will be altered, the avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures identified in this DBESP will provide biologically equivalent or superior functions and values in areas that will be protected by a conservation easement or other similar agreement. Potential impacts to conserved species are not expected when proposed mitigation measures are considered in conjunction with the Project. The mitigation measures are described in detail below.
Mitigation Measure 4 — Construction Mitigation Measures The following Construction Minimization Measures (Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP) will be implemented during Project construction to minimize impacts to MSHCP covered species and/or impacts on habitat during construction:
• A pre -construction survey for burrowing owl (BUOW) shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to reevaluate the locations of active burrowing owl burrows located adjacent to or within the Project limits and to avoid direct take of BUOW (MSHCP Species Specific Objective 6). If BUOWs are identified on site, avoidance measures will be developed in compliance with the MSHCP and in coordination with the CDFW and/or 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 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 disturbance area, passive relocation techniques would be used rather than actual avian trapping. At least one or more weeks would be necessary to accomplish this and allow the birds to acclimate to alternate burrows. • The 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.
• Timing of construction activities will consider seasonal requirements for breeding birds and migratory non-resident species. Habitat clearing will be avoided during species active breeding season defined as March 1 to June 30.
• A qualified biologist should conduct an environmental training session for project personnel prior to construction activities. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its Chambers Group, Inc. 25
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished. • During construction, the placement of equipment within upland Habitats occupied by Covered Species that are outside of the project footprint will be avoided. • Crews should avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern. • Active construction areas shall be watered regularly to control dust and minimize impacts to adjacent vegetation.
• Waste, dirt, rubble, or trash shall not be deposited in the Conservation Area or on native habitat.
Mitigation Measure 5 — MSHCP Standard Best Management Practices The following Best Management Practices (Appendix C of the MSHCP) will be implemented during Project construction to minimize impacts on covered species and/or impacts on habitat during construction:
• The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. • Storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters.
Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, USFWS, and CDFW, RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. • The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.
• Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible.
• To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).
• Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen.
Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities.
Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas.
Chambers Group, Inc. 26
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
SECTION 7.0 - DETERMINATION OF BIOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR EQUIVALENT OR PRESERVATION The Project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine, Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp Requirements (Section
6.1.2) of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. A habitat assessment conducted for this Project indicated the area would not support any of the MSHCP-covered avian species (least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow -billed cuckoo), and no focused surveys for these species are required. In addition, the site does not support vernal pools or other seasonal wetland habitats; therefore, focused surveys for Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp, Riverside fairy shrimp, and vernal pool fairy shrimp are also not required.
The Project is consistent with the Species Survey Requirements (Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2) of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Project mitigation measures are provided for BUOW. The Project is located within a narrow endemic plant survey area, which includes Marvin's onion and Many -stemmed dudleya (RCA 2025). However, the Project site does not contain suitable habitat required by these two species; thus, these species are not anticipated to be found within the Project site. Therefore, focused protocol - level surveys are not required. The Project is consistent with Urban/Wildlife interface Guidelines (Section
6.1.4) and Reserve Assembly Requirements within the Criteria Area (Section 3). The Project is not located within any Criteria Cells or proposed Conservation Areas.
Based on the analysis provided in this report, no purchase of offsite rehabilitation credits is required at this time and the recommended mitigation measures will result in an equal habitat function and value as with pre -project conditions.
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
27
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, CA
SECTION 8.0 - REFERENCES
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling 1999 Rapid Bio Assessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Way Able Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish (2nd ed., EPA 841-B-99-002). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
County of Riverside
2025 Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) General Plan, Accessed at Riverside County General Plan
Planning Department Riverside County (rctlma.org)
in February, 2025.
Chambers Group Inc. (CGI)
2025 Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project, Beaumont, California. Chambers Group, Inc., Santa Ana, CA prepared for EXP.
Gray, J. and D. Bramlet
1992 Habitat Classification System, Natural Resources, Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, CA.
Sawyer, J.O., Jr. and T. Keeler -Wolf
1995 A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J.M. Evens
2009 A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2025 Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/apD/ in January 2025.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
2025 National Wetland Inventory (NWI). http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ . Accessed January 2025.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2025 Beaumont 7.5 -minute quadrangle. https://nationalmap.gov/ustopo/ . Accessed January 2025.
2025a National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Official NHD accessed online at:
https://www.usgs.gov/national-hydrography . Accessed January 2025.
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) 2025 Riverside County Integrated Project. Conservation Planning Process/Description and Area Plan Criteria of the MSHCP Conservation Area. RCA MSHCP Information Map, 2.0. Website https://www.wrc-rca.org/ Accessed January 2025.
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
28
0 L610 689 abed
APPENDIX A - PLANT SPECIES LIST
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
APPENDIX A — PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
Scientific Name
- ommon Name
ANGIOSPERMS (EUDICOTS)
APOCYNACEAE
DOGBANE FAMILY
Trachelospermum jasminoides*
star .asmine
ASTERACEAE
SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia psilostachya
western ragweed
Artemisia californica
California sagebrush
Baccharis pilularis
coyote brush
Baccharis salicifolia subsp. salicifolia
mule fat
Baccharis sarothroides
broom baccharis
Centaurea melitensis*
tocalote
Centaurea solstitialis*
yellow star -thistle
Erigeron canadensis
horseweed
Heterotheca grandiflora
telegraph weed
Stephanomeria pauciflora
wire lettuce
Pseudognaphalium sp.
cudweed
BRASSICACEAE
MUSTARD FAMILY
Hirschfeldia incana*
shortpod mustard
CHENOPODIACEAE
GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Salsola australis*
Russian -thistle
EUPHORBIACEAE
SPURGE FAMILY
Euphorbia sp.*
euphorbia
Croton setiger
turkey -mullein
FABACEAE
LEGUME FAMILY
Acmispon glaber
deerweed
LAMIACEAE
MINT FAMILY
Salvia apiana
white sage
Salvia columbariae
chia
Salvia mellifera
black sage
NAMACEAE
NAMA FAMILY
Eriodictyon crassifolium
thick -leaved yerba santa
POLYGONACEAE
BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum fasciculatum
California buckwheat
ROSACEAE
ROSE FAMILY
Rhaphiolepis indica*
Indian hawthorn
SALICACEAE
WILLOW FAMILY
Populus fremontii subsp. fremontii
fremont cottonwood
SAPINDACEAE
SOAPBERRY FAMILY
Acer macrophyllum
big -leaf maple
SOLANACEAE
NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Datura wrightii
imson weed
ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTS)
POACEAE
GRASS FAMILY
Arundo donax*
giant reed
Avena fatua*
wild oat
Bromus diandrus*
ripgut grass
Cynodon dactylon*
Bermuda grass
GYMNOSPERMS
PINACEAE
PINE FAMILY
Pinus sp.
pine
"Non -Native Species
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
01.610 Z6S a6ed
APPENDIX B - WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
APPENDIX B — WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED
= "ci - ntific N - m -
Common Name
CLASS AVES _
BIRDS
ACCIPITRIDAE
HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES
Buteo jamaicensis
red-tailed hawk
COLUMBIDAE
PIGEONS & DOVES
Columba livia
rock pigeon
CORVIDAE
JAYS & CROWS
Corvus corax
common raven
FRINGILLIDAE
FINCHES
Carpodacus mexicanus
house finch
ICTERIDAE
BLACKBIRDS
Sturnella neglecta
western meadowlark
PASSERELLIDAE
NEW WORLD SPARROWS
Melospiza melodia
song sparrow
PASSERIDAE
OLD WORLD SPARROWS
Passer domesticus
house sparrow
TYRANNIDAE
TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayornis saya
Say's phoebe
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
0 L610 1769 abed
APPENDIX C - BEAUMONT MDP LINE 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND JURISDICTIONAL
DELINEATION REPORT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND
JURISDICTIONAL DELINATION REPORT FOR
THE BEAUMONT MDP LINE 2 PROJECT
BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
EXP
1650 Iowa Avenue Suite 110
Riverside, CA 92507
CHAMBERS
'7A\- GROUP
Prepared by:
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
3151 Airway Ave., Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(949)261-5414
February 2025
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, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, SETTING 3
2.1 INTRODUCTION 3
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
2.3 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING 3
SECTION 3.0 -JURISDICTIONAL WATERS REGULATORY OVERVIEW 5 SECTION 4.0 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION 7
4.1 METHODS 7
4.1.1 Literature Review 7
4.2 MSHCP OTHER PLAN REQUIREMENTS 7
4.2.1 Soils 8
4.2.2 Jurisdictional Waters 10
4.2.3 Biological Reconnaissance -Level Survey 11
SECTION 5.0 — RESULTS 13
5.1 MSHCP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 13
5.1.1 Outside of MSHCP Criteria Area 13
5.1.2 Vegetation 13
5.1.3 Wildlife 13
5.2 SOILS 15
5.3 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS 18
5.3.1 Delineated Waters 23
5.3.2 CDFW/MSHCP Riparian Habitat 23
5.4 SUMMARY OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS 26
5.4.1 Potential USACE Jurisdiction 26
5.4.2 Potential RWQCB Jurisdiction 26
5.4.3 Potential CDFW Jurisdiction 27
5.5 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 27
5.5.1 Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub 29
5.5.2 Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series 29
5.5.3 Ruderal 29
5.5.4 Ornamental 30
5.5.5 Bare Ground 30
5.5.6 Developed 30
5.6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 31
5.6.1 Special Status Plants 32
5.6.2 Special Status Wildlife 34
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.7 GENERAL PLANTS 35
5.8 GENERAL WILDLIFE 35
SECTION 6.0 - PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 36
6.1 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS 36
6.1.1 Federal Permits 36
6.1.2 State Permits 36
6.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 37
6.3 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS 37
6.4 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE 37
6.5 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT, AS AMENDED (16 USC 703-711) 38 SECTION 7.0 - REFERENCES 40
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A -
APPENDIX B -
APPENDIX C -
APPENDIX D -
APPENDIX E -
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
PLANT SPECIES LIST
WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
OHWM AND WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS
n
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Acreages of Potential Jurisdictional Waters that Occur Within the Impact Areas of the Project Site 26
Table 2: Vegetation Communities within the Survey Area 30 Table 3: Criteria for Evaluating Special Status Species Potential for Occurrence (PFO) 31
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity 2
Figure 2: Special Status Species Occurrences Within 5 Miles 9 Figure 3: RCA Western Riverside County Criteria Area Cells 16 Figure 4: USDA Soils Map 17
Figure 5: Jurisdictional Waters Database Map 19
Figure 6: Watershed 20
Figure 7: Groundwater Basin 21
Figure 8: FEMA Flood Hazard Zones 22
Figure 9: Jurisdictional Delineation Results Map 25
Figure 10: Vegetation Communities 28
iv
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) within the existing right-of- way (ROW) 1) along 6th Street from Chestnut to Pennsylvania Avenue; 2) along Pennsylvania Avenue from 6th Street to 1st Street; and 3) along 15t Street from Pennsylvania to an existing earthen channel in the City of Beaumont (City). The Project location as depicted in Figure 1 is referred to throughout this report as the Survey Area. The Survey Area for the reconnaissance -level survey, vegetation mapping, and preliminary jurisdictional delineation includes all areas within the Project boundaries.
Chambers Group biologists Heather Madera and Austin Burke 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.
Results from the survey documented developed and bare ground areas, including four vegetation communities within the Survey Area. No special status plants were observed within the Survey Area. No burrowing owls or active burrows with signs, including cough pellets and whitewash, were observed within the Survey Area. 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. 1
E 1st St
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2117/2025 149 PM Author: pcarbs tx‘ GROUP
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
SECTION 2.0 - INTRODUCTION, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, SETTING
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Chambers Group was retained by EXP (Client) to conduct a literature review, reconnaissance -level biological resources survey, and jurisdictional waters delineation for the Project. The survey 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 Recourses and Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) 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). Information contained in this document is in accordance with 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 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, as such, it is only required to comply with "Other Plan Requirements" discussed further in Section 4.2.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC) has partnered with the City to provide funding for the design and construction of the Project. In July 1983, RCFC developed a 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 the undeveloped areas become urbanized, flooding damage is expected to increase. Therefore, the installation of drainage systems is required to safely convey storm runoff through the concerned areas with minimal interruption to public services.
Particularly, the installation of a channel would eliminate flood concerns for properties between 1st Street and Interstate 10 (I-10).
The construction of approximately 5,000 linear feet of 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. 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.
2.3 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The City of Beaumont is located within the northwestern area of Riverside County, bounded by Calimesa to the north/northwest, Banning to the east, and San Jacinto to the south. The Project consists of 3 segments as follows:
3
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
• 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, as well as open space. East 6th Street is lined with commercial development. Pennsylvania Avenue features commercial 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 at the Project site ranges from 2,610 to 2,550 feet above mean sea level (amsl).
Maps of the Project Location and Project Vicinity are provided in Figure 1. 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 US. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW were delineated for the Project site. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. 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 to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule (2015 Rule) and re -codify 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 ephemeral features 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. 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 these 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 Clean Water Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States" ("2015 Rule"), which amended portions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and to restore the regulatory text that existed prior to the 2015 Rule. The final "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States" rule (the "2023 Rule") became effective on March 20, 2023. Subsequently, the Conforming 2023 Rule took into account the Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency and its implications to the definition of Waters of the United States. Therefore, this JD is consistent with the 2023 Conforming Rule and includes measurement of the Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM) to determine Waters of the United States (WoUS).
Evaluation of the state jurisdiction follows guidance from the same jurisdictional areas as USACE. In addition, the JD study 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 were 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 5
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
MSHCP Section 6.1.2; urban/wildlands interface issues pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.4; and areas under the jurisdictions of the USACE and/or the 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" (MSHCP 2025).
Additional 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 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION
4.1 METHODS
Chambers Group conducted a literature review, reconnaissance -level survey, and preliminary jurisdictional waters delineation for the Project. 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 search 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 on Figure 2
■ Reconnaissance -level survey: Project location (Survey Area) as shown on Figure 1 • Jurisdictional delineation: Described in Section 5.3
■ Vegetation mapping: Described in Section 5.5
4.1.1 Literature Review
Prior to performing the reconnaissance -level survey and preliminary jurisdictional waters delineation, existing documentation relevant to the Survey Area was reviewed. The most recent records of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) managed by the CDFW (CDFW 2025), the USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2025), the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 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 2025) were reviewed for the following quadrangles containing and surrounding the Survey Area: Beaumont, Yucaipa, Forest Falls, San Gorgonio Mountain, El Casco, Cabazon, Lakeview, San Jacinto, and Lake Fulmor, California USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangles. These databases contain records of reported occurrences of federally and state listed as endangered or threatened species, proposed endangered or threatened species, California Species of Special Concern (SSC), or otherwise special status species or habitats that have been reported to occur within or in the immediate vicinity (i.e., 5 miles) of the Survey Area. A map of special status species occurrences within 5 miles of the Survey Area is included as Figure 2.
4.2 MSHCP OTHER PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Regardless of whether the site is located within any Criteria Cells, Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas, or proposed Conservation Areas, and whether it is subject to the focused species surveys associated with those areas, all projects within the MSHCP area require an evaluation of potential impacts on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools and the protected species associated with those habitats.
Riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools are defined in the MSHCP as follows:
Riparian/riverine areas include lands that contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens which occur close to, or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source; or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetland 7
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetland plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season.
When a site supports suitable riparian/riverine areas and/or vernal pool habitats for the wildlife species covered by the MSHCP listed below, focused surveys are required to determine their presence or absence from the site.
Vernal Pool Invertebrates
Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae) Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni)
vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
Riparian Birds
least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) western yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)
4.2.1 Soils
Before conducting the survey, soil maps for Riverside County were referenced online to determine the types of soils found within the Project site and surrounding 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).
8
42 I
41B
uigo Golf
Club
Cherry Valle/
Oak Valley Gol "I�'i
t rIi.
ffinNrgg
gF�� ggm
46 96 96 46 aF gej
4 3 4 gFgO
946
gg
4 f �
27 4
//
90 46
41Q
79 I
Ile
go
/ 1
1 mi
3 mi
San Gorgo io
Pass
810
gg 14
ge
96 SG
40 NF
gF
G�3
K30
5 mi
gD
9 14.
m
.7 a
Mount
Edge
Animals
1. American badger
2. burrowing owl
3. California horned lark
4. coast horned 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. southem California rufous -crowned sparrow
24. southem 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. western yellow bat
32. yellow warbler
Plants
33. chaparral sand -verbena
34. Coachella Valley milk -vetch
35. Horn'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. Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
44. Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
45. spiny -hair blazing star
46. Yucaipa onion
i—� Project Location
i� USFWS Occurrences
CNDDB Occurrences
Animals
Q Plants
0 0.75 1.5
3 Figure 2
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Special Status Species
Occurrences Within 5 Miles
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd ' CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2114120255: 10 PM Author: pcarlos '/?i\� GROUP Page Ti' ' of 910
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
4.2.2 Jurisdictional Waters
Chambers Group biologists Heather Madera and Austin Burke performed an assessment of jurisdictional waters potentially regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW within the Survey Area on January 14, 2025.
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 National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) maps, and USGS quadrangle maps were reviewed; and all features were inspected in the field on- and off -site for true connectivity. Potential USACE / RWQCB / CDFW jurisdictional areas identified during 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 for 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 determine the location of the OHWM. Average channel width and depth, substrate types, and vegetation within and/or along the banks were recorded. Data was collected using a combination of records entered into ESRI ArcGIS Collector© and hand-written field notes. Potential jurisdictional waters and riparian communities were mapped at a minimum scale of 1:6000, often down to 1:2000.
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, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. These wetland parameters are discussed in greater detail below.
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 potential wetland areas within the survey area were surveyed by walking through the Project site and making observations of those areas exhibiting characteristics of jurisdictional wetlands.
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 pits of these potential wetland areas were identified and their wetland indicator status 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, 10
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
sulfur, or carbon compounds (USACE 2008) due to periods of anaerobic conditions in the soil. The hydric soil criterion is considered satisfied at a location if soils in the area can be inferred to have 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.
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 hydrology 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 indicator or at least two secondary indicators are found at a sample pit, the wetland hydrology criterion is considered satisfied.
4.2.3 Biological Reconnaissance -Level Survey
Chambers Group biologists Heather Madera and Austin Burke conducted a reconnaissance -level survey 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. The survey was conducted on foot throughout the Survey Area between 0800 and 1300 hours on January 14, 2025. All plant and wildlife species and vegetation communities observed within the Survey Area were recorded.
Weather conditions during the survey included temperatures ranging from 46 to 58 degrees Fahrenheit, with 0 percent cloud cover and no precipitation. Wind speeds ranged between 12 and 20 miles per hour (mph). Photographs of the Survey Area were recorded to document existing conditions (Appendix B).
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 survey is provided in Appendix C.
11
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Wildlife
All wildlife and wildlife sign observed and/or detected, including tracks, scat, carcasses, burrows, excavations, and vocalizations, during both surveys were recorded. Additional survey time was spent in those habitats most likely to be utilized by wildlife (trees were surveyed with binoculars for bird nests or avian activity) or in habitats with the potential to support federally 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 during the survey is provided in Appendix D.
12
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
SECTION 5.0 - RESULTS
5.1 MSHCP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
5.1.1 Outside of MSHCP Criteria Area
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 (Figure 3). Because the site does not occur within a Criteria Area Cell, a Joint Project Review (JPR) is not required. The site is not within an amphibian survey area or a mammal survey area. However, the site is located within a designated burrowing owl survey area and narrow endemic plant survey area, which includes Marvin's onion (Allium marvinii) and Many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis)(RCA 2025). Therefore, additional surveys for these species may be required.
5.1.2 Vegetation
Riverine/Riparian
Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series vegetation community occurs within the southern portion of the Project site where waters exit the site through a concrete culvert. The primary source of water is this area is provided by seasonal rainfall and runoff. In addition, this area receives nuisance water from the surrounding residential neighborhood. This area is heavily disturbed with a buildup of sediment and debris. This disturbed riparian area is primarily vegetated with Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), giant reed (Arundo donax), and other exotic species. Because of the presence of riparian vegetation, this area should be considered under an MSHCP Riparian area.
Vernal Pools
There were no Vernal Pools located within or adjacent to the Project site.
5.1.3 Wildlife
Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) FE, SE
The least Bell's vireo (nesting) is a federal- and state -listed endangered subspecies of the Bell's vireo. The least Bell's vireo typically nests in willows and other riparian trees or shrubs, and typically nests 3 to 6 feet above the ground. This species requires densely vegetated riparian habitat along streams and rivers during the spring and summer months to breed, and foraging in habitat adjacent to its nesting territory, which is typically riparian or chaparral. The Project site lacks the dense riparian habitat required by this species for nesting. Therefore, this species is not anticipated to occur within the site or be impacted by Project activities.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) FE, SE The southwestern willow flycatcher (nesting) is a federally endangered subspecies of willow flycatcher whose summer breeding range includes southern California (from the Santa Ynez River south), Arizona, New Mexico, extreme southern portions of Nevada and Utah, extreme southwest Colorado, and western Texas (USGS 2024). This species is known to breed in a variety of riparian habitats with multi -tiered canopies and surface water and/or saturated soils, whether along streams in broad valleys, in canyon bottoms, around mountain -side seepages, or at the margins of ponds and lakes. Where willow species 13
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
dominate, high foliage -volume willow cover is preferred but with willow clumps separated by openings.
Habitat types may include a variety of willow, cottonwood (Populus sp.), coast live oak, alder (Alnus sp.), and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) woodlands. The Project site lacks suitable habitat required by this species; therefore, the southwestern willow flycatcher is not anticipated to occur within or adjacent to the Project site.
Western Yellow -Billed Cuckoo (Cocc
rzus americanus occidentalis) FT, SE
The western yellow -billed cuckoo (nesting) is a state -listed endangered species. The yellow -billed cuckoo is found primarily in the Eastern United States, but this subspecies is an extremely rare and localized summer resident of the southwestern U.S. Historically, it was found commonly throughout the Central Valley and California coastline until the early twentieth century. This species primarily inhabits mature, open riparian woodlands along the broad, lower flood -bottoms of larger river systems. Habitat features usually include some relatively open patches and intermixed low, dense, scrubby vegetation typical of these watercourses. In the southwestern U.S., the western yellow -billed cuckoo also occupies desert riparian woodlands composed of willows, cottonwoods, and dense mesquite (Prosopis sp.). It typically nests in willows and forages more so among the cottonwoods than other trees. The Project site lacks the mature and dense riparian habitat required by this species. Therefore, this species is not anticipated to occur within or adjacent to the Project site.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) SSC
The following APNs within the Project site are within a species survey area for burrowing owl: 418-160- 007; 418-240-009, 011; 418-250-006, 009, 010; 418-341-009; 418-342-002; 418-360-003, 009; 419-630- 001, 002, 003, 011, 012, 029, 030; 419-631-017; 419-772-001. This California species of special concern is one of the 146 species covered by RCA's MSHCP. Nesting in underground burrows typically abandoned by other animals such as ground squirrels, the burrowing owl prefers open, flat, grassland habitat, a factor that has led to declining numbers in the last 20 years as development has progressed. Under federal laws protecting migratory birds, both the owls and their burrows are protected. Mitigation includes relocating birds that have been displaced and allowing birds to relocate into new burrows in a safe location. Areas outside of the Project site within 500 feet of the site contain flat and open space consisting of disturbed and Ruderal vegetation. These areas have a low potential to support burrowing owls and require further surveys.
Santa Rosa Plateau Fairy Shrimp (Linderiella santarosae) FT The only known population of this species occurs on a mesa underlain with basalt flows on the Santa Rosa Plateau, located within the Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve. However, this species is endemic to western Riverside County and could potentially exist in vernal pools with similar substrate. The Project site lacks the suitable habitat that is required by this species; therefore, this species is not anticipated to be impacted by Project activities.
Riverside Fairy Shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) FE
The Riverside Fairy Shrimp is a federally endangered species. It prefers moderately deep vernal or ephemeral ponds situated within coastal sage scrub or grassland. It is found in seasonally astatic pools filled by winter/spring rains. It is endemic to western Riverside and San Diego counties in areas of tectonic swales/earth slump basins that form playas, that are underlain by basalt flow and clay soils, including the Santa Rosa Plateau, Skunk Hollow, Murrieta, and the Lake Elsinore back basin areas of Riverside County. 14
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
No suitable habitat for this species occurs within the Project site. Therefore, this species is not anticipated to occur within the Project site.
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi) FT
The vernal pool fairy shrimp is a federally threatened species and is endemic to California in Riverside County. This species occurs only in vernal pools and vernal pool -like habitats in alluvial fans and terraces, and will not occur in riverine, marine, or other permanent bodies of water (USFWS 2007). This species requires cool waters of 50 degrees Fahrenheit or cooler (USFWS 2007). No vernal pools were observed within the Project site. Therefore, this species is not anticipated to be impacted by Project activities.
5.2 SOILS
After review of USDA Soil Conservation Service and by referencing the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2025), it was determined that the Project site is located within the Western Riverside Area CA679 (Figure 4: USDA Soils Map). Based on the results of the database search, four soil types were observed in the Project site:
Ramona sandy loam (RaB2), 2 to 5 percent slopes is a well -drained soil typically found on terraces and alluvial fans at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet amsl. The soil profile is composed of sandy loam, sandy clay loam, and gravely sandy loam. These soils typically have low runoff when wet.
Ramona sandy loam (RaB3), 0 to 5 percent slopes is a well -drained soil typically found on terraces and alluvial fans at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet amsl. The soil profile is composed of sandy loam, sandy clay loam, and gravely sandy loam. These soils typically have medium runoff when wet.
Ramona sandy loam (RaC3), 5 to 8 percent slopes is a well -drained soil typically found on terraces and alluvial fans at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet amsl. The soil profile is composed of sandy loam, sandy clay loam, and gravely sandy loam. These soils typically have high runoff when wet.
Terrace escarpments (TeG), are steep slopes, that occur most often along waterways, that are easily disturbed and made of layers of various mixtures of sand, silt, gravel and/or clay. They are typically found on terraces and at a wide range of elevations.
15
3 Brookside Ave
Oak Valley Golf
Club
w 935
940
1015
allcv Fo
y
W 4th St
2819 ft
V
C
z
a,
E
w
a,
E
a
E 13th St
E 12th St
to
a,
O
0 z
High St
C
Grand Ave
a,
a
a,
v
Cougar Way
Oak Valley Pkwy
E 9th St
Beaumont E 8th St
79 1410
1413
1502
1505
2853 ft
1412
1512
1404
1507
1405
1508
1499
a,
s
Cr
I
E 6th St
Highland
Springs
Country Club
Highland Springs Ave
E 1st St
Potrero Blvd
1500
any s6ui.idS puely6IH S
1501
San
Gorgonio
Sun Lakes
0'
Sun Lakes
Country Club
1598
1600
1601
1599
1597
1593
1594
1595
1698
1697
0 1696
C..)
-0
1695
1694
1689
1690
1693
1794
San GE
Pa
Pass
1609
.1795
1790
1791 co
.1792
1788
1786
1787
1789
1710
= Project Location
Criteria Cell
Figure 3
Beaumont MDP Line 2
RCA Western Riverside County Criteria Area Cells
N
0 0.38 0.75 1.5
Page'8144 of 910
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd — CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2114120252:35 PM Author: pcaroe % k\\ GROUP
ReC2
USDA USDA Soils
RaC2
GyC2
RaB2
RaD3
RaB2
RaC3
GyC2
RdD2
RaD2
RaC3
ReC2
SmE2
•
SmE2
RaB2
1 RfC2
SmF2
RdD2
TeG
GyC2 - Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8
percent slopes, eroded
RaB2 - Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes, eroded
RaB3 - Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 5
percent slopes, severely eroded
RaC2 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8
percent slopes, eroded
RaC3 - Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8
percent slopes, severely eroded
RaD2 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, eroded
RaD3 - Ramona sandy loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, severely eroded
RdD2 - Ramona sandy loam,
moderately deep, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, eroded
ReC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0
to 8 percent slopes, eroded
RfC2 - Ramona very fine sandy loam,
moderately deep, 0 to 8 percent slopes,
eroded
SmE2 - San Timoteo loam, 8 to 25
percent slopes, eroded
SmF2 - San Timoteo loam, 25 to 50
percent slopes, eroded
TeG - Terrace escarpments
RaB3
RaB2
RaC3
ReC2
l
GyC1
E Project Location
Figure 4
Beaumont MDP Line 2
USDA Soils
0 350 700
1,400
Page Ik5 of 910
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2/14/2025 2:35 PM Author: derides %9t\‘ GROUP
Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
5.3 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS
The Project site is located within the Potrero Creek Watershed and contains disturbed riparian vegetation.
Although there was no flowing water and soils were problematic, this section of the creek may be subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. A JD survey was conducted and potential waters of the United States and waters of the State are described below.
Hydrology and Connectivity
A feature mapped in the NWI as an ephemeral drainage runs through the southern end of the Project site as shown in Figure 5, Waters Databases Map (USFWS 2025). The Survey Area is located within the Potrero Creek Watershed (HUC 12-180702020201) of the Upper Santa Ana Valley groundwater basin (USDA 2025) in Riverside County, California (Figure 6). The Potrero Creek Watershed in Beaumont is bordered to the north by the San Bernardino Mountains and to the south by the San Jacinto Mountains, to the west by the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Mountains, and to the east by the Little San Bernardino Mountains. Potrero Creek flows south/southwest for 5 miles until it joins the San Jacinto River near California State Route 79, which ultimately drains into Lake Elsinore. The headwaters of the San Jacinto River are in the San Bernardino Mountains. Ephemeral water features within the Survey Area flow into Potrero Creek.
Figure 7 provides the groundwater basin containing the Survey Area (i.e., Upper Santa Ana Valley). Figure 8 provides the location of the flood zones identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) runs through the Survey Area. The SFHA 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). 18