Beaumont City Council
August 4, 2026

Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2 — CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2117/20251: 49 PM Author: pcatbs %9t\' GROUP

l]I.G I I five
ountry Cl/
circa A
Oak Valley Golf
Club
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
Highland Spring
E 1st St
1807n nr.�
02020201
Potrero Creek
any s6ulad5 pueiy6lH S
181002010101
Smith Creek
10 5a /2C
kun Lakes
65/4,c/
Sun Lakes
ountry Club
a
Q Project Location
Q Watershed (HUC-12)
Figure 6
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Watersheds
0 0.25 0.5 1
Page PE9l8 of 910
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd — CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2114120252:35 PM Author: pcarbs %fit\\ GROUP

Project Location
Groundwater Basin
Figure 7
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Groundwater Basins
0 0.25 0.5 1
Page '99 of 910
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd — CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2/14/20252:35 PM Author: pcatbs t\‘ GROUP

Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2 CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2114120252:35 PM Author: pcatlos t\'s GROUP

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California

5.3.1 Delineated Waters
Based on the NWI and NHD database search, a mapped blue -line riverine feature runs through the Survey Area of the Project. The field delineation confirmed the presence of the drainage. Figure 9 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 15t 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 within the Survey Area may be subject to USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdiction.

The drainage is described below and data recorded for the drainage within the Survey Area is presented in Table 1. Completed OHWM forms and wetland delineation forms representative of the water feature identified are provided in Appendix E. Reference photographs were taken during this survey and are included in Appendix B.

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.

5.3.2 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 contains Fremont cottonwood, mule fat, giant reed, California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and other exotic species. Several soil pits were dug during the survey. No hydric soils were observed within the Project boundary due to the presence of excess sediment and debris. Thus, the soil pits could not be dug deep enough to identify hydric soils. 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, so the area can be considered a wetland under CDFW jurisdiction with only two of the three wetland parameters present.

Therefore, 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 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 23

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
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. 24

Project Location Soil Pit
A Culvert - StreamRiver
Jurisdictional Delineation
Bank to Bank
Ordiniary High Water Mark
404
Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mztl CHAMBERS
Print Date: 2/17/20251:49 PM Author: pce1os %fit\� GROUP

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California

5.4 SUMMARY OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
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 affected by Project activities, they may be subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. The results of this JD 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 1 provides a summary of acreages ofJurisdictional Waters and the potential impacts to waters that occur within the Project site if they were to be affected.

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
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
Total MSHCP Riparian

0.038
1,655.28

5.4.1 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.

5.4.2 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 26

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
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.

5.4.3 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.

5.4.4 Potential MSHCP Jurisdiction
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 a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is warranted for this Project. The DBESP is being prepared under separate cover.

5.5 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Four vegetation communities were documented within the Survey Area: Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub, Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series, Ruderal, and Ornamental. In addition, two other land types were present in the Survey Area: Bare Ground and Developed. The following sections summarize the principal characteristics of the vegetation communities and land types, including the general locations of these areas within the Project site. Total acreages for each habitat type are presented in Table 2, and mapped vegetation communities and land types within the Survey Area are depicted in Figure 10. 27

Name: 21501 Beaumont MDP Line 2.Mxd CHAMBERS
Pant Date: 2/14/20253:00 PM Author: pcatlos %91\‘ GROUP

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California

5.5.1 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 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 califomica), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), white sage (Salvia apiana), or black sage (Salvia mellifera). The herbaceous layer is variable and may be grassy (Sawyer et al. 2009). 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).

5.5.2 Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series
The Fremont Cottonwood Series, as described by Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf (1995), is dominated by the Fremont cottonwood, 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, and California buckwheat. Non-native species included: giant reed, Russian thistle (Salsola australis), ripgut grass, wild oat, and shortpod mustard.

5.5.3 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. 29

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
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 15t 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).

5.5.4 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 15t 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.

5.5.5 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.

5.5.6 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 6th Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, and E 15t street which are paved roads that run parallel with the proposed construction activities, along with sidewalks.

Table 2 below summarizes the vegetation communities and other areas within the Survey Area and the acreage of each land type.

Table 2: Vegetation Communities within the Survey Area
Vegetation Communities
Acres
Bare Ground

1.32 Developed

7.74 Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub

0.04 Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series

0.01 Ornamental

0.09 Ruderal

3.35 30

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California

5.6 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
The following information is a list of abbreviations used to help determine the significance of biological special status resources potentially occurring on the Project site.

California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
CRPR 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California.

CRPR 1B = Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range.

CRPR 2 = Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere in their range.

CRPR 3 = Plants about which we need more information, a review list.

CRPR Extensions

0.1 = Seriously endangered in California (greater than 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat).

0.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80 percent occurrences threatened).

0.3 = Not very endangered in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened).

Federal
FE = Federally listed; Endangered
FT = Federally listed; Threatened
State
ST = State listed; Threatened
SE = State listed; Endangered
RARE = State -listed; Rare (Listed "Rare" animals have been re -designated as Threatened, but Rare plants have retained the Rare designation.)
SSC = California Species of Special Concern
FP = Fully Protected
WL = Watchlist
The following information was used to determine the significance of biological resources potentially occurring within the Project site. The criteria used to evaluate the potential for special status species to occur on the Project site are outlined in Table 3.

Table 3: Criteria for Evaluating Special Status Species Potential for Occurrence (PFO) PFO*

CRITERIA

Absent:

Species is restricted to habitats or environmental conditions that do not occur within the Project site.
31

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
PFO*

CRITERIA
Low:

Historical records for this species do not exist within the immediate vicinity (approximately 5 miles) of the Project site, and/or habitats or environmental conditions needed to support the species are of poor quality.

Moderate:

Either a historical record exists of the species within the immediate vicinity of the Project site (approximately 3 miles) and marginal habitat exists on the Project site, or the habitat requirements or environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the Project site, but no historical records exist within 5 miles of the Project site.

High:

Both a historical record exists of the species within the Project site or its immediate vicinity (approximately 1 mile), and the habitat requirements and environmental conditions associated with the species occur within the Project site.

Present:

Species was detected within the Project site at the time of the survey. * PFO: Potential for Occurrence

5.6.1 Special Status Plants
Current database searches (CDFW 2025 and CNPS 2025) resulted in a list of 59 federally and/or state listed threatened and endangered or otherwise special status plant species documented to occur within 5 miles of the Project site. After the literature review and the reconnaissance -level survey, it was determined that 42 of the 59 species are considered absent from the Survey Area based on the assessment of the various habitat types observed in the area of the site. 17 of the species are considered to have a low potential to be present in the site due to low quality and disturbed nature of the habitat. Factors used to determine the potential for occurrence included the quality of habitat, elevation, soil type, and the results of the reconnaissance survey. In addition, the location of prior CNDDB records of occurrence was used as additional data, but because the CNDDB is a positive -sighting database, these data were used only in support of the analysis from the previously identified factors.

The following 39 plant species are considered absent from the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat and/or the species are found outside of the elevational range on site:
• Cienega Seca oxytheca (Acanthoscyphus parishii var. cienegensis) — CRPR 1B.3 • Yucaipa onion (Allium marvinii) — CRPR 1B.2
• white -margined everlasting (Antennaria marginata) — CRPR 2B.3 • Southern California galium broomrape (Aphyllon epigalium ssp. notocalifornicum) — CRPR 1B.3 • rock sandwort (Arenaria lanuginosa var. saxosa) — CRPR 2B.3 • Coachella Valley milk -vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae) — FE, CRPR 1B.2 • San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) — FE, CRPR 1B.1 • Parish's brittlescale (Atriplex parishii) — CRPR 16.1 • Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii) — CRPR 1B.2 • Parish's rockcress (Boechera parishii) — CRPR 1B.2
• San Bernardino rockcress (Boechera peirsonii) — CRPR 1B.2 • scalloped moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) — CRPR 2B.2 • California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus) — FE, SE CRPR 1B.1 • white-bracted spineflower (Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca) — CRPR 1B.2 32

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
• slender -horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras) — FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1 • many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) — CRPR 1B.2 • Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium subsp. sanctorum) — FE, SE, CRPR 1B.1 ■ southern alpine buckwheat (Eriogonum kennedyi var. alpigenum) — CRPR 1B.3 ■ San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw (Galium angustifolium subsp. jacinticum) — CRPR 1.B3 ■ Alvin meadow bedstraw (Galium californicum subsp. primum) — CRPR 1.B2 ■ San Bernardino gilia (Gilia leptantha ssp. leptantha) — CRPR 1.B3 ■ Parish's alumroot (Heuchera parishii) — CRPR 1B.3
■ mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula) — CRPR 1B.1 ■ pygmy hulsea (Hulsea vestita subsp. pygmaea) — CRPR 1B.3 ■ Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) — CRPR 1B.1 ■ Hall's monardella (Monardella macrantha subsp. hallii) — CRPR 1B.3 ■ San Felipe monardella (Monardella nana subsp. leptosiphon) — CRPR 1B.2 • mud nama (Nama stenocarpa) — CRPR 2B.2
• spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) — FT, CRPR 1B.1 • woolly mountain -parsley (Oreonana vestita) — CRPR 1B.3 • rock -loving oxytrope (Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila) — CRPR 2B.3 ■ white rabbit -tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum) — CRPR 2B.2 ■ Latimer's woodland-gilia (Saltugilia latimeri) — CRPR 1B.2 ■ Parish's checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. parishii) — CRPR 1B.2 ■ salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana) — CRPR 2B.2 ■ Krantz's catchfly (Silene krantzii) — CRPR 1B.2
• southern jewelflower (Streptanthus campestris) — CRPR 1B.3 • California screw -moss (Tortula californica) — CRPR 1B.2 • Wright's trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii) — CRPR 2B.1 The following three plant species are considered absent from the Project site because surveys took place during each species' bloom period when they would have been conspicuous and identifiable and yet were not observed:
■ chaparral sand -verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita) — CRPR 1B.1 ■ Mojave tarplant (Deinandra mohavensis) — SE, CRPR 1B.3 ■ narrow -leaf sandpaper -plant (Petalonyx linearis) — CRPR 2B.3 The analysis of the literature review and the field survey resulted in 17 species with a low potential to occur in the Project site because of recorded historical observations within 5 miles of the site. However suitable habitat is heavily disturbed giving it a low potential. The following species have a low potential to occur:
• Horn's milk -vetch (Astragalus hornii var. hornii) — CRPR 1B.1 • Jaeger's milk -vetch (Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri) — CRPR 1B.1 • thread -leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) — FT, SE, CRPR 16.1 • Palmer's mariposa -lily (Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri) — CRPR 1.62 • San Bernardino Mountains owl's -clover (Castilleja Iasiorhyncha) — CRPR 1B.2 ■ Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) — CRPR 1B.1 ■ Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) — CRPR 1B.1 ■ Fremont's gentian (Gentiana fremontii) — CRPR 2.63
• California satintail (Imperata brevifolia) — CRPR 2B.1 33

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
• lemon lily (Lilium parryi) — CRPR 1B.2
• white bog adder's -mouth (Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda) — CRPR 2B.1 • spiny -hair blazing star (Mentzelia tricuspis) — CRPR 2B.1 • San Bernardino grass -of -Parnassus (Parnassua cirrata var. cirrata) — CRPR 1B.3 • Bear Valley checkerbloom (Sidalcea malviflora ssp. dolosa) — CRPR 1B.2 • fringed chocolate chip lichen (Solorina spongiosa) — CRPR 2B.2 • San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) — CRPR 1B.2 • California dandelion (Taraxacum californicum) — FE, CRPR 1B.1

5.6.2 Special Status Wildlife
A current database search (CNDDB 2025) resulted in a list of 49 federal- and/or state -listed endangered or threatened, Species of Concern, or otherwise special status wildlife species that may potentially occur within the Project site. After a literature review and the assessment of the various habitat types within the Project site, it was determined that 40 special status wildlife species were considered absent from the Project site and nine species have a low potential to occur within the Project site. Factors used to determine potential for occurrence included the quality of habitat and the location of prior CNDDB records of occurrence.

The following 40 wildlife species are considered absent from the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat present or because the species falls outside the elevation range found on the Project site. ■ American badger (Taxidea taxus) — SSC
■ Bell's sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli) — WL
• black swift (Cypseloides niger) — SSC
■ California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) — SSC • coast patch -nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea) — SSC ■ coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) — SSC ■ coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) — FT, SSC ■ Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) — Candidate SE
• ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) — WL
• golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) — FP
• Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) — SSC
■ lesser long -nosed bat (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae) — SSC ■ loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) — SSC
■ Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) — SSC • pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) — SSC
• Palm Springs round -tailed ground squirrel (Xerospermophilus tereticaudus chlorus) — SSC • purple martin (Progne subis) — SSC
• red -diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) — SSC
■ San Bernardino flying squirrel (Glaucomys oregonensis californicus) — SSC ■ San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) — FE, SE, SSC ■ San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) — SSC ■ Santa Ana speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3) — SSC ■ southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) — WL ■ southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus ramona) — SSC ■ southern mountain yellow -legged frog (Rana muscosa) — FE, SE, WL • southern rubber boa (Charina umbratica) — ST
34

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
■ southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) — FE, SE ■ steelhead - southern California DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10) — FE ■ Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) — FT, ST ■ Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) — ST
■ Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) — SSC ■ tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) — ST, SSC
■ two -striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii) — SSC ■ western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) — SSC
■ western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) — SSC
■ western yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) — FT, SE ■ white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) — WL
■ white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) — FP
• yellow breasted chat (Icteria virens) — SSC
• yellow -headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) — SSC The analysis of the CNDDB search and field survey resulted in nine species with a low potential to occur on the Project site due to recent occurrences within 5 miles and/or low quality habitat:
• burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) — SSC
• California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) — WL • coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) — SSC
• coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) — SSC ■ Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) — WL
■ least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) — FE, SE
• orange -throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) — WL • southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) — SSC • yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) — SSC

5.7 GENERAL PLANTS
A total of 31 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 plants observed is provided in Appendix C.

5.8 GENERAL WILDLIFE
A total of 8 wildlife species were observed during the survey. Wildlife 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 wildlife observed is provided in Appendix D. 35

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 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS
One ephemeral drainage feature occurs within and adjacent to the Survey Area. Approximately 0.038 acres within the Survey Area may be subject to subject USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction if affected by Project activities. The drainage is a mapped NWI blue -line riverine that exhibits channelization and eventually connects to Potrero Creek which terminates into San Jacinto River (TNW).

To minimize impacts to the drainage, we recommend the following:
• A biological monitor shall be present prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities to demark limit of disturbance boundaries. Flagging and/or staking will be used to clearly define the work area boundaries and avoid impacts to adjacent drainage features. • Erosion protection and sediment control BMP's would be implemented in compliance with the General Construction General Permit.

6.1.1 Federal Permits
The drainage delineated within the Survey Area is considered ephemeral and eventually connects to a TNW (San Jacinto River); therefore, based on the definition of WoUS, this drainage should be considered under USACE jurisdiction. However, if the Project design avoids the water feature that occurs within the site and temporary impacts can be avoided through the use of BMP's; no impacts to WoUS are 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.

6.1.2 State Permits
The drainage exhibits channelization and bank to bank geomorphology within the Project site; therefore, the drainage should be considered under CDFW jurisdiction. However, if the Project design avoids the water feature that occurs within the site and temporary impacts are avoided through the use of BMP's; no impacts to drainages under CDFW jurisdiction are anticipated to occur as a result of Project activities.

The Project plans to avoid associated banks and vegetation within the limits of the banks during Project activities and therefore, no permanent or temporary impacts are anticipated to occur, thus, a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) should not be required from CDFW for this Project.

Based on this delineation, the drainage is considered under RWQCB jurisdiction. However, if the Project design avoids the water feature that occurs within the site and temporary impacts are avoided through 36

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
the use of BMP's; no impacts to drainages under waters of the state are anticipated to occur as a result of Project activities, and a 401 Certification 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.

6.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Four vegetation communities were observed within the Survey Area: Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub, Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Series, Ruderal, and Ornamental. Bare ground and Developed areas were also identified within the Survey Area. All vegetation communities may be permanently impacted. The total acres of each vegetation community that will be impacted within the Survey Area are found in Table 2.

6.3 MSHCP RIPARIAN
A total of 0.038 acres of riparian vegetated streambed was mapped within the Project site. However, the riparian vegetation is lacking the mature forest and canopy required by the riparian species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The site does not support vernal pools or other seasonal wetland habitats.

Additionally, the site lacks the 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.

6.4 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS
After the literature review, the assessment of the various habitat types in the Project area, and the reconnaissance survey was conducted, it was determined that 41 of the 58 species with a potential to occur are considered absent from the Project site. 17 species are considered to have a low potential to be present at the Project site due to low quality and disturbed suitable habitat. The Project site is not within a Criteria Area Cell but is in a narrow endemic plant survey area which includes Marvin's onion and Many - stemmed dudleya. 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 or the associated buffer.

Therefore, focused protocol -level surveys are not required.

6.5 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE
Of the 49 special status wildlife species identified in the literature review, it was determined that 40 special status wildlife species were considered absent from the Project site and nine had a low potential to occur within the Project site. Least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow - billed cuckoo are not anticipated to nest within the Project site. 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. Burrowing owl (BUOW) has a low potential to occur within the Project site. In addition, the site occurs in a MSHCP designated BUOW area; therefore, a BUOW focused survey is required in accordance with the MSHCP. A pre -construction focused survey for BUOW shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to reevaluate the locations of active burrowing owl burrows located 37

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
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 Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). These measures would include the following as well as any others developed in coordination with CDFW and/or RCA:
• A biologist with knowledge of BUOW and its habitat will be retained to function as a biological monitor.
• The biological monitor will develop and implement a contractor education program with regard to the BUOW to be provided to all personnel (including temporary contractors and subcontractors) before beginning work on the Project.
• The biological monitor will be present during vegetation clearing, grading, and construction, to monitor occupied BUOW burrows and any construction -related impacts. • Prior to any ground disturbance, all limits of Project construction will be delineated and marked to be clearly visible to personnel on foot and in heavy equipment. All construction -related activities (e.g., vegetation removal, grading, equipment lay -down and storage, and contractor parking) will occur inside the limits of construction and designated staging areas. Construction staging and equipment storage will be located outside any occupied BUOW burrow locations. • All movement of contractors, subcontractors, or their agents and equipment will be restricted to the limits of construction and staging areas.
• A qualified biologist will conduct any necessary BUOW passive relocation that may be required to avoid Project effects to BUOW.
• If BUOW must be moved away from the proposed work area, passive relocation techniques would be used rather than actual avian trapping. At least one or more weeks would be necessary to accomplish this to allow the birds to acclimate to alternate burrows. • The Project would provide funding for long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands acquired for BUOW impacts. This monitoring would include an annual report submittal to the CDFW.

The agencies will make the final determination of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

6.6 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 September 15), to the maximum extent practical.

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 Project site should be delineated. Additional follow-up surveys may be required by the resource agencies. To the maximum extent practicable, a minimum buffer zone around occupied nests should be maintained during 38

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
physical ground -disturbing activities. The buffer zone should be sufficient in size to prevent impacts to the nest. Once nesting has ceased, the buffer may be removed. 39

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.

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 January 2025.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
2025 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Accessed January 2025 from http://www.cnps.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.

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.

Munsell Color
2009 Munsell® Soil -Color Charts. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Sawyer, J.O., Jr. and T. Keeler -Wolf
1995 A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

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.

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.

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.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ on January 2025. 40

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
2007 Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta Iynchi) 5 -year review: Summary and evaluation.

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA.
2025 National Wetland Inventory (NWI). http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ . Accessed January 2025.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2007 Breeding Ranges of Willow Flycatcher Subspecies. URL:
http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/cprs/research/pro'ects/swwf/wiflrang.asp . Accessed on 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.
41

0 L610 0179 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 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 Relatively Permanent Waters (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 2010), 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 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. 1979).

In A Clarification of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetland Definition (Tiner 1989), 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.

Chambers Group, Inc. A-4

0 L610 9179 abed

APPENDIX B - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California

APPENDIX B - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1.

Overview photo of
E 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
but is dominated
by Ruderal
vegetation. Photo
is facing
southeast.

Photo 4.

Overview photo of
of Pennsylvania
Avenue south of
the 10 freeway.

This area is
developed with
Ruderal vegetation
growing along the
east side of the
road. 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.

Overview photo of
the NWI mapped
ephemeral
drainage located
east of
Pennsylvania
Avenue and
outside of the
Project site. The
open space is
dominated with
Ruderal
vegetation. Photo
is facing south.

Photo 6.

Culvert located on
the east side of
Pennsylvania
Avenue. This
culvert facilitates
storm runoff
southeast into the
mapped
ephemeral
drainage. Photo is
facing north.

Chambers Group, Inc. 3
21501

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 7.

Overview of the
culvert located on
the west side of
Pennsylvainia
Avenue. There is
no evidence of
hydrology on this
side of the road.

The area is
dominated with
Ruderal
vegetation. Photo
is facing west.

Photo 8.

Overview photo
along E 1St Street.

The north side of
the road is
dominated by
Ruderal
vegetation. The
ephemeral
drainage
continues
southeast and
crosses the road
underground
through another
culvert. Photo is
facing west.

Chambers Group, Inc. 4
21501

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
91°IIry 111 l`!I @ erl `' •
Photo 9.

Overview photo of
E 1st Street and
Berkshire Avenue.

This area is
developed with
Ornamental
Landscaping along
the sidewalks and
in the roads center
divider. Photo is
facing west.

Photo 10.

Overview photo of
the culvert that is
located on the
southern side of E
1St Street. The area
is heavily
disturbed from
mowing activities
on the hillsides
and has excess
sediment and
debris that
terminates from
the culvert. Photo
is facing
northwest.

Chambers Group, Inc. 5
21501

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 11.

The ephemeral
drainage continues
outside of the
Survey Area and
eventually
connects to
Potrero Creek. A
defined channel
with a clear bank
to bank and
OHWM is visible.

Photo is facing
south.

Photo 12.

The ephemeral
drainage also
receives nuisance
water from the
surrounding
neighborhood
through a culvert
and drainage
located just
outside the Survey
Area. Photo is
facing east.

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 soil pit location
within the Survey
Area. 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.

Photo 14.

Soils pulled from
the soil pit are
sandy loam and
not classified as
hydric.

Chambers Group, Inc. 7
21501

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Photo 15.

Overview photo of
the hillside
surrounding the
southern culvert.

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.

Photo 16.

Close up photo of
the culvert
showing the
excess amount of
sediment and
debris built up
from flooding
events. Photo is
facing northwest.

Chambers Group, Inc. 8
21501

01.6 10 1799 abed

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)

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
telecraah 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.*
eu ahorbia
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
1

Biological Resources and Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Beaumont MDP Line 2 Project Beaumont, California
Datura wrightii
jimson 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. 2
21501

01.6 10 L99 a6ed

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
Sci - 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
Sa iornis saya
Say's phoebe
Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21501

0 L610 699 abed

APPENDIX E - OHWM AND WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS

RAPID
U.S. Amly Corps of Engineers (USACE)

ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) FIELD IDENTIFICATION DATA SHEET The proponent agency is Headquarters USACE CECW-CO-R.

From Approved -
OMB No. 07fo-OHWM
Expires: xx-xx-waarx
The public
reviewing
nformation,
Services,
law, no
number.

AGENCY DISCLOSURE
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 wt mc-alex.esd.tnbx.dd d NLI12.14ftnation•collection ftgrnail.m.it Respondents NOTICE
to average 30 minutes per response, inducting 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 person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection Project
ID te: 21501 Site Name: Beaumont MDP Line 2 Date and Time: 1/14/2025, I030AM Location
(let/long): 33.921353N 1 I6.963417W 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 file site.

I
gage data LiDAR V \
climatic data 1>< satellite imagery
aerial photos topographic maps
Step 2
The
amount
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. area around the southern culvert is heavily disturbed. The hillside shows some signs of erosion. There is an excess 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
erosional
below and above the OHWM. From.
either just below 'b', at 'x', or
and to attach a photo log.
bedload indicators
(e g , obstacle marks, scour, a
etc.)
channels:

Geomorphic
indicators
X Channel
Break
/ `
in slope: r
bar: b
shelving (berms) on bar
unvegetated b
vegetation transition
(go to veg indicators)
sediment transition
(go to sed indicators)
upper limit of deposition
on bar
bedforms and other
transport evidence:
deposition bedload indicators
(e g , imbricated clasts,
gravel sheets, etc )
bedforms a
( g , Poofs,
riffles, steps, etc )
s
smoothing,
Secondary
on the bank
.

F.
undercut bank
Sediment indicators
I�
V ` valley bottom b
IX
Soil
Changes
Mudcracks:

Changes
distribution:
development:
transition
upper
silt deposits:
soil
b
in character of soil:
b
in particle -sized
from to
Other:
•
Shelving:

V \
Instream
, bedload
shelf at top of bank I�
V
b ❑
\�
b
man-made berms or levees:

V
hint of sand sized particles
roots below
layer x
other
berms
Vegetation
Indicators
Exposed
intact
is
Change in vegetation type
and/or density: x
Check the appropriate boxes and select
the general vegetation change (e g ,
graminoids to woody shrubs) Describe
the vegetation transition looking from
the middle of the channel, up the
banks, and into the floodplain.
forbs to
graminoids to
woody
I
Vj`��
V
Wrackinglpresence of
x
organic litter:

Presence of large wood:

Leaf litter disturbed or
washed away:

Water staining:

Weathered clasts or bedrock:
ri
❑
mi vegetation
absent to
Vegetation
`J andlor
b
moss to V
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
PREVIRW f@SOLETE.

Project ID*: 21501
Step 4 Is additional Information needed to support this determination? ■ Yes X No If yes, describe and attach information to dataaheet:

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
age bbl o
Pape 2 of

OHWM Field Identification Datasheet instructions and Field Procedure Step 1
Step 2
Step 3a
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 Vert. 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?
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 ONWM 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, darns, culverts) or natural structures (e.g., bedrock outcrops, Large Wood
jams) that will influence or control flow?
List evidence
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?
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.

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 gable 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 fora 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, knickpointsiheadcuts
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 lowing
water?
Ancillary indicators
Is there organic litter
present?
Is there any leaf Fitter
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 usefui to note if specific indicators (e.g., vegetation) ale NOT present. For Inatome, note if the site has no clear vegetation zonation.

ENG FORM 6250, SEP 2021

Pays 3 of

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 !ow 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? MI this indcator still persist 8C105'S 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 fog using either page 2 of datasheet or another nvtf iod 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 Mld? a, If additional resources are needed, then repeat steps 3a and 3b for the resources selected in Step 1 of assembing, weighting, and weighing evidence collected from online resources. Chapter 5 of the OHVVM field manual provides information on using online resources. b. Any data collected from online tools have strengths and weaknesses. Make sure these are dear 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 OHVVM:
a. Why do the combination of indicators represent the OHWM? b. If there are multiple possibilltes 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

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region
Project/Site: Beaumont MDP Line 2
Applicant/Owner: City
Investigator(s): Heather Madera and Austin Burke
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Subregion (LRR):

City/County: Beaumont/Riverside County Sampling Date: 1/14/25 State: CA Sampling Point: 1
Section, Township, Range:

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

Lat: 33.921449N
Long: 116.963482
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No Are Vegetation ✓ , Soil ✓ , or Hydrology ✓ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -
Slope (%):

Datum:
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
No
Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes
Yes
Yes
✓ No
No
✓ No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
✓
Remarks:

Heavy flooding has made this area problematic. See below.

VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size:

1. Fremont Cottonwood

2. 3.

4. Sa
3Iing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:

1. Mule Fat

2. Giant reed

3. California buckwheat

4. 5.

Herb Stratum (Plot size:

1. Riogut 5

2. shortood mustard 1

3. Russian thistle

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 16 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum

1. Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
10 X FACW
10 = Total Cover
35 X FAC
15 X FACW
5 60 = Total Cover
10 2.
(Plot size:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
0 = Total Cover
60 % Cover of Biotic Crust
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species 2 x 2 = 4
FAC species 1 x 3 = 3
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: 3 (A) 7 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.33
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
✓ Dominance Test is >50%
1 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.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✓ No
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.

US Army Corps of Engineers d9E O Arid West — Version 2.0 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 recuired) Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) I Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) I Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) I 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) 1 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

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY REPORT

FOR THE
BEAUMONT MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN LINE 2, STAGE 1 PROJECT,

BEAUMONT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

CITY OF BEAUMONT
Public Works Department
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Prepared by:

CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 104
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 541-2800
March 2025

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
This page intentionally left blank
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California

NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE INFORMATION
Authors: Efrain S. Arroyo, MA, RPA; Richard D. Shultz, MA, RPA Consulting Firm: Chambers Group, Inc.

Project Proponent: City of Beaumont
Report Date: March 2025
Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Type of Study: Phase I Cultural Resources Study
New Resources Recorded: 0 resources
Previously Recorded Resources: 3 resources
USGS Quadrangles: Beaumont, California 7.5 -minute quadrangle (2021) Acreage: 12.55 acres
Permit Numbers: N/A
Keywords: Beaumont, Riverside County, California; Township 3 South, Range 1 West, Section 10, Section 11; San Bernardino Meridian; Beaumont 7.5 -minute quadrangle; City of Beaumont; Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; Cahuilla; Serrano; archaeological survey; cultural resources survey; negative survey; P-33-009498, CA-RIV-6381H; P-33-023484, CA-RIV-23484; P-33- 028622; storm drain improvement plan
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chambers Group, Inc. (Chambers Group) was contracted by EXP U.S. Services, Inc. (EXP), to complete a cultural resources study for the City of Beaumont's Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2, Stage 1 Project (Project). The proposed Project includes the construction of approximately 5,000 linear feet of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) within the existing right-of-way (ROW) 1) along 6th Street from Chestnut Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue; 2) along Pennsylvania Avenue from East 6th Street to East 1st Street; and 3) along 1st Street from Pennsylvania Avenue to an existing earthen channel just east of Berkshire Avenue (Project site) in the City of Beaumont (City). This Phase I cultural resources survey and assessment was conducted in compliance with the applicable City policies, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

The purpose of this study was to gather and analyze information needed to assess the potential for effects to any historic properties within the Project site. This study included a cultural resources records search, literature review, and pedestrian field survey of the 12.55 -acre Project site.

A records search of a half -mile radius study area centered on the Project site (study area) was conducted prior to the field survey. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search identified no sacred sites within the Project site. The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) records search identified four previous cultural resource studies and three previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site; however, no impacts to these resources are expected. Background research yielded no findings of cultural or archaeological significance.

Chambers Group conducted a pedestrian field survey of the entire Project site, on February 20, 2025. The Project site was surveyed by cultural resources principal investigator Efrain Arroyo, MA, RPA (Secretary of the Interior [SOI]-qualified archaeologist), and cultural resources specialist Kellie Kandybowicz, BA. Visual inspection of the surface revealed no evidence of cultural resources within the Project site.

Based on the results of the records search review, background research, and field survey, this study did not identify any historical resources, as defined per CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a), within the Proposed Project site. As such, no impacts to historical resources are expected. Considering the results of this study, Chambers Group also recommends a finding of no adverse effect to historic properties under Section 106 of NHPA, as no such historic properties, as defined under Section 106 of NHPA, were identified within the Project site. However, to ensure less than significant impacts to inadvertent findings of cultural resources during construction, Chambers Group recommends that a Qualified Archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards, shall be retained for the duration of the Project. Upon request and approval by the City, the Qualified Archaeologist shall also oversee the development and implementation of a Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan (CRMP), that further outlines protocols and procedures for monitoring, and mitigation or treatment protocols and procedures to appropriately manage inadvertent discovery of any potential cultural resources during the Project.

Chambers Group, Inc.
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE INFORMATION II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 2

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION 2

2.3 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 2
SECTION 3.0 - REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 3

3.1 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1996 3

3.1.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 3

3.1.2 National Register of Historic Places 3

3.1.3 Traditional Cultural Properties 4

3.1.4 Protected Religious Practice 4

3.2 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 5

3.2.1 Assembly Bill 52 8

3.3 LOCAL 8
SECTION 4.0 - SETTING 10

4.1 PREHISTORY 10

4.2 ETHNOHISTORY 11

4.2.1 Cahuilla 11

4.2.2 Serrano 12

4.3 HISTORY 13

4.4 GEOLOGY 14

4.4.1 Geologic Units 14

4.4.2 Soils 15
SECTION 5.0 - METHODS 16

5.1 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH 16

5.2 FIELD SURVEY 16

5.3 PERSONNEL 17
SECTION 6.0 - RESULTS 18

6.1 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES WITHIN STUDY AREA 18

6.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN STUDY AREA 23

6.3 ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH 29

6.3.1 Built Environment 29

6.4 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION AND AB 52 CONSULTATION 30

6.5 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 31
Chambers Group, Inc. iv
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
SECTION 7.0 — RECOMMENDATIONS 32
SECTION 8.0 — FIGURES AND PHOTOGRAPHS 34
SECTION 9.0 - REFERENCES 39

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A (CONFIDENTIAL) NAHC SLF Search Results and AB 52 Consultation APPENDIX B (CONFIDENTIAL) CHRIS Records Search Results
Chambers Group, Inc. v
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: USDA Soil Types within the Project Site 15
Table 2: Studies within a Half -Mile Radius 18
Table 3: Resources within a Half -Mile Radius 23

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity Map 34
Figure 2: Area of Potential Effects Map 35

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1: Undeveloped, disturbed parcel west of Pennsylvania Avenue. View to the northeast 36 Photograph 2: Undeveloped, disturbed parcel east of Pennsylvania Avenue. View to the northeast 36 Photograph 3: P-33-009498/CA-RIV-6381H, rail lines. View to the west. 37 Photograph 4: P-33-023484/CA-RIV-23484, SCE Memphis 12kV Distribution Line. View to the east 37 Photograph 5: P-33-028622, Stewart Sunnyslope Cemetery. View to the south from Project site. 38 Photograph 6: Pennsylvania Avenue, south of Interstate 10. View to the south. 38 Chambers Group, Inc. vi
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
SECTION 1.0 — INTRODUCTION
Chambers Group was contracted by EXP, to complete a cultural resources records search, literature review, and pedestrian field survey in support of the Beaumont MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Project. The Project requires Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and is subject to Section 106 of the NHPA.

The purpose of this cultural resource study was to assess the potential for significant cultural resources within the Project site and determine if the Project has the potential to affect any historic properties. The following study and evaluation were conducted in accordance with the applicable City policies, CEQA, and Section 106 of the NHPA. All identified cultural resources were previously evaluated for eligibility on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

This report outlines the findings of this cultural resources study and includes recommended mitigation measures to ensure less than significant impacts to inadvertent findings of cultural resources during construction.

Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
SECTION 2.0 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Beaumont (City) proposes the construction of approximately 5,000 linear feet of RCP within the existing ROW along 6th Street from Chestnut Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue; along Pennsylvania Avenue from East 6th Street to East 1st Street; and along 1st Street from Pennsylvania Avenue to an existing earthen channel just east of Berkshire Avenue (Project) in the City of Beaumont. The proposed pipe would begin at East 6th Street and Chestnut Avenue and terminate at East 1st Street and Berkshire Avenue where it would discharge to the existing earthen channel immediately east of Berkshire Avenue.

A headwall would be constructed into the Berkshire Channel to accommodate the larger pipe diameter.

The installation of drainage systems is required to safely convey storm runoff with minimal interruption to public services. Particularly, the installation of a channel would eliminate flood concerns for properties between East 1st Street and Interstate 10 (I-10) and future development projects in the area.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located in the City of Beaumont, in western Riverside County, California. The proposed Project is in Township 3 South, Range 1 West, Sections 10 and 11 of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian, and depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Beaumont, California 7.5 -minute quadrangle (2021) (Figure 1). The Project is sited along East 6th Street from Chestnut Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue (approximately 420 meters [1378 feet]), proceeding along Pennsylvania Avenue from East 6th Street to East 1 Street (approximately 420 meters [1378 feet]), then along East 1st Street from Pennsylvania Avenue to an existing earthen channel just east of Berkshire Avenue (264 meters [866 feet]). Project elevation ranges between 2,610 and 2,560 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).

Land uses around the proposed Project consist of developed and undeveloped parcels and open spaces.

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.

2.3 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) encompasses the Project site and Limits of Disturbance (LOD) boundaries as delineated by the City and depicted in Figure 2, ranging from approximately 24 to 34 meters (80 to 110 feet) in width throughout the entire proposed new alignment, expanding to approximately 139 meters (455 feet) at the two open parcels planned for laydown and storage yards just north of the I-10.

Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
SECTION 3.0 - REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

3.1 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1996
Enacted in 1966, the NHPA (54 United States Code [U.S.C.] 300101 et seq. [formerly 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.]) declared a national policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at the federal, state, and local levels. The NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the NRHP, established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assist Native American tribes in preserving their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

NHPA establishes the nation's policy for historic preservation and sets in place a program for the preservation of historic properties by requiring federal agencies to consider effects to significant cultural resources (i.e., historic properties) prior to undertakings.

3.1.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the NHPA states that federal agencies with direct or indirect jurisdiction over federally funded, assisted, or licensed undertakings must take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP and that the ACHP and SHPO must be afforded an opportunity to comment, through a process outlined in the ACHP regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, on such undertakings.

3.1.2 National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the NHPA of 1966 as "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the Nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment." The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past.

Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

Criterion D:
history.

It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or In addition to the four National Register Criteria noted above, qualifying resources must retain aspects of integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. "The evaluation of integrity is Chambers Group, Inc. 3
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance" (NPS 1997:44). The National Park Service Bulletin 15 (NPS 1997) identifies seven aspects of integrity that a property should retain, and include: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association. While maintenance of all aspects of integrity is not required, a property should possess most of the aspects that are integral to its ability to convey its significance. Understandably, not all aspects of integrity are applicable across the range of buildings, structure, objects, or sites under evaluation. Aspects such as design, workmanship or feeling likely may not be integral to understanding the significance of an archaeological deposit, whereas these would be essential in understanding a significant building, or structure.

Cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historic figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; and properties that are primarily commemorative in nature are not considered eligible for the NRHP unless they satisfy certain conditions. In general, a resource must be at least 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of exceptional importance.

3.1.3 Traditional Cultural Properties
Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA, as amended (1992), provides for properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. National Register Bulletin 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (Parker and King 1998) provides guidance on identifying, evaluating, and documenting ethnographic and other cultural resources that may qualify for listing on the National Register as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP). In order for a resource to be eligible for consideration as a TCP it must meet the age criterion for listing and be "...eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community" (Parker and King 1998:1).

3.1.4 Protected Religious Practice
Some resources may not meet the criteria for consideration as a TCP but are considered sacred by Native American traditional practitioners.

Executive Order 13007
Executive Order (EO) 13007 defines a sacred site as "...any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion." EO 13007 directs Federal agencies, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of such sites, and to avoid adversely affecting their physical integrity.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978 states that it is the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for Native Americans the inherent right to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions, including but not limited to access to religious sites, use and possession of scared Chambers Group, Inc. 4
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. The courts have determined that there is a compliance element implied within AIRFA that requires federal agencies to obtain the views of tribal leaders and to consider these when a proposed land use might conflict with traditional religious beliefs or practices.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation.

3.2 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
Under the provisions of CEQA, including CEQA Statutes (Public Resources Code [PRC] §§ 21083.2 and 21084.1), CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], § 15064.5), and PRC § 5024.1 (Title 14 CCR § 4850 et seq.), properties expected to be directly or indirectly affected by a proposed project must be evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR; PRC § 5024.1).

The purpose of the CRHR is to maintain listings of the state's historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from material impairment and substantial adverse change. The term historical resources include resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR; resources included in a local register of historical resources; and any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (CCR § 15064.5[a]). The criteria for listing properties in the CRHR were expressly developed in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP 1995:2) regards "any physical evidence of human activities over 45 years old" as meriting recordation and evaluation.

According to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a), the term "historical resource" includes the following:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by, the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CRHR.
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial Chambers Group, Inc. 5
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR including the following:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k)), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

According to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Guidelines define a substantial adverse change as:
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. (2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR; or
(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k) or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
(C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA Guidelines applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:

Chambers Group, Inc. 6
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
(1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). (2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of PRC Section 21084.1 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the limits contained in PRC Section 21083.2 do not apply.
(3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a) but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in PRC Section 21083.2, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in PRC Section 21083.2 (c -f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. (4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor an historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.

Section 15064.5(d) & (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American heritage Commission. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
(1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) (2) The requirement of CEQA and the California Coastal Act (e) In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken:
(1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
(A) The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and (B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:

1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

Chambers Group, Inc. 7
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California

2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American.

3. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98, or
(2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. (A) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission.
(B) The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or (C) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

3.2.1 Assembly Bill 52
California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted in 2014 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), requiring analysis of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources (TCR) (PRC § 21074), and establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process (PRC §§ 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2). The bill specifies that any project may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR would require a lead agency to "begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project." PRC § 21074(a)(1)(A) and (B) define TCRs as "sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe" which meet either of the following criteria:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k).
• A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1 (in applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe).

3.3 LOCAL
In addition to State regulations, projects built in the City of Beaumont are also subject to the following goals and policies outlined in the City of Beaumont General Plan Update (2020), Chapter 8: Conservation + Open Space. Specifically, Chapter 8 of the General Plan outlines several policies relating to archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources driven by Goal 8.11.

Chambers Group, Inc. 8
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Goal 8.11: A City where archaeological, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and historical places are identified, recognized, and preserved.

Policies:

8.11.1 Avoid or when avoidance is not feasible, minimize impacts to sites with significant archaeological, paleontological, cultural and tribal cultural resources, to the extent feasible

8.11.2 Comply with notification of California Native American tribes and organizations of proposed projects that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources, per the requirements of AB52 and SB18.

8.11.3 Encourage the preservation of historic (i.e., non -archaeological) resources, when practical. When it is not practical to preserve a historic resource in its entirety, require the architectural details and design elements of historic structures to be preserved during renovations and remodels as much as feasible.

8.11.4 Require that any human remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the City be treated with respect and dignity and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, California Public Resources Code Amended Statutes 1982 Chapter 1492, California Public Resources Code Statutes 2006, Chapter 863, Section 1, CA Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 , Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, Public Resources Code Section 5097.94, SB 447 (Chapter 404, Statutes of 1987) and other appropriate laws.

8.11.6 Consider the establishment of an arts and culture district that encourages venues for the arts and entertainment, protects historical buildings and cultural resources, and enhances the City image.

Chambers Group, Inc. 9
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
SECTION 4.0 — SETTING

4.1 PREHISTORY
It is generally agreed that human occupation of southern California began at least 10,000 years before present (BP). The archaeological record indicates that between approximately 10,000- and 6,000 years BP, a predominantly hunting and gathering economy existed, characterized by archaeological sites containing numerous projectile points and the remains of butchered large animals. The most heavily exploited species were likely those species still alive today. Bones of extinct species have been found in the region but, unlike other regions of the continent, are not definitively associated with cultural artifacts in California. Although small animal bones and plant grinding tools are rarely found within archaeological sites of this period, small game and vegetal foods were likely exploited on a widespread basis. A lack of intact stratified cultural deposits from this period suggests small groups practiced high residential mobility during this period (Wallace 1978).

The three major periods of prehistory for the greater Los Angeles Basin region have been refined by research using radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in coastal southern California (Koerper and Drover 1983; Mason and Peterson 1994):
• Millingstone Period (6,000-1,000 BC, or about 8,000 to 3,000 years ago) • Intermediate Period (1,000 BC -AD 650, or 3,000 to 1,350 years ago) • Late Prehistoric Period (AD 650 —about AD 1800, or 1,350 to 200 years ago) Around 6,000 years BP, a shift in focus from hunting toward a greater reliance on vegetal resources occurred. Archaeological evidence of this trend consists of a much greater number of milling tools (e.g., metates and manos) for processing seeds and other vegetable matter (Wallace 1978). This period, known to archaeologists as the Millingstone Period, was characterized by small, mobile groups that likely relied on a seasonal round of settlements that included both inland and coastal residential bases. Seeds from sage and grasses provided calories and carbohydrates. Faunal remains from sites dating to this period indicate animals similar to the preceding period were hunted. Inland Millingstone sites are characterized by numerous manos, metates, and hammerstones. Shell middens are common at coastal Millingstone sites. Coarse -grained lithic materials, such as quartzite and rhyolite, are more common than fine-grained materials in flaked stone tools from this time. Projectile points are found in archaeological sites from this period, but they are far fewer in number than from sites dating to before 6,000 years BP. An increase in the size of groups and the stability of settlements is indicated by deep, extensive middens at some sites from this period (Wallace 1978).

In sites post-dating roughly 3,000 years BP, archaeological evidence indicates reliance on both plant gathering and hunting continued and was more specialized and locally adapted to particular environments. Mortars and pestles were added to metates and manos for grinding seeds and other vegetable material. Chipped -stone tools became more refined and specialized, and bone tools were more common. During this period, new peoples from the Great Basin began entering southern California. These travelers, who spoke an Uto-Aztecan language, seem to have displaced or absorbed the earlier population of Hokan-speaking peoples. The exact time of their entry into the region is not known; however, they were present in southern California during the final phase of prehistory. During this period, population densities were higher than before; and settlement became concentrated in villages and communities along the coast and interior valleys (Erlandson 1994; McCawley 1996). During the Intermediate Period, mortars and pestles appeared, indicating the beginning of acorn exploitation. Use of the acorn —a high - Chambers Group, Inc. 10
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
calorie, storable food source —probably allowed greater sedentism and facilitated an increased level of social organization. Large projectile points from archaeological sites of this period indicate that the bow and arrow, a hallmark of the Late Prehistoric Period, had not yet been introduced; and hunting was likely accomplished using the atlatl (spear thrower) instead. Settlement patterns during this time are not well understood. The semi -sedentary settlement pattern characteristic of the Late Prehistoric Period may have begun during the Intermediate Period, although territoriality may not yet have developed partially because of lower population densities. Regional subcultures also started to develop, each with its own geographical territory and language or dialect (Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996; Moratto 1984). These were most likely the basis for the groups encountered by the first Europeans during the eighteenth century (Wallace 1978). Despite the regional differences, many material culture traits were shared among groups, indicating a great deal of interaction (Erlandson 1994). The Late Prehistoric Period is better understood than earlier periods largely through ethnographic analogy made possible by ethnographic and anthropological research of the descendants of these groups in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

4.2 ETHNOHISTORY
The Project site is located within the northwestern ethnographic territory of the Cahuilla, immediately south of the southern margin of ethnographic territory of the Serrano, where overlaps between the two use areas are noted (Kroeber 1925; Bean 1972, 1978). The Project site is located approximately 12.5 miles (20 kilometers) northwest of the historically mapped boundary between the two groups (Bean 1978; Bean and Smith 1978); however, these boundaries are generally considered quite fluid and are not mapped with great certainty.

4.2.1 Cahuilla
The Cahuilla, along with the Luiseno and the Gabrielino, are one of the most southwesterly of the Shoshonean or Uto-Aztecan speakers. They are members of the Takic branch of this large language family.

Traditional Cahuilla territory originally included western and part of central Riverside County and extended into northeastern San Diego and northwestern Imperial counties. The western boundary generally followed the Santa Ana, Elsinore, and Palomar mountains. The northern boundary extended north of Riverside to the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains. Cahuilla territory extended east to include the Coachella Valley and down the valley as far south as the approximate middle of the Salton Sea. The approximate southern territorial limits included Borrego Springs and the south end of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Cahuilla territory consisted of the Mountain, the Pass or Western, and the Desert divisions (Bean 1978; Hooper 1920:316; Strong 1929).

According to Kroeber (1925), Cahuilla society consisted of two ceremonial divisions or moieties: wildcat and coyote. People were further divided into somewhat localized, patrilineal clans. Each clan had a chief:
net in Cahuilla (Kroeber 1925). Some villages contained people of only one clan, but other villages had more than one clan. Also, people of one clan might live in more than one village. Chiefs were usually chosen by heredity. The chief typically was a religious leader of the larger social group, from which the chief drew certain wealth. A chief ordered ceremonies, but it was his assistant, the paha', who executed them. Choice hunting and gathering areas were owned by the clan. The clan chief also settled intraclan disputes and met with other nets to solve interclan problems and organize ceremonies among clans.

The Cahuilla sustained themselves through hunting, gathering, and fishing. Major villages were fully occupied during the winter, but —during other seasons —task groups made periodic forays to collect Chambers Group, Inc. 11
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
various plant foods, with larger groupings from several villages organizing for the annual acorn harvest (Bean and Saubel 1972). Bean and Saubel (1972) have recorded the use of several hundred species of plants used for food, building/artifact materials, and medicines. The major plant foods included acorns, pinyon nuts, and various seed -producing legumes. Agave, wild fruits and berries, tubers, cactus bulbs, roots and greens, and seeds complemented these.

Hunting focused on both small and medium-sized mammals, such as rodents and rabbits, and large mammals, such as pronghorn sheep, mountain sheep, and mule deer. Hunting was done using the throwing stick or the bow and arrow, although nets and traps were also used for small animals (Bean 1972).

Cahuilla material culture included dome -shaped to rectangular -type houses; aboveground granaries; baskets, pottery, and grinding implements; throwing sticks, clubs, nets, traps, dead falls with seed triggers, spring -poled snares, arrows, and self -backed and sinew -backed bows. They sometimes fired bush clumps to drive game out in the open and flares to attract birds at night. Baskets of various kinds were used for winnowing, leaching, grinding, transporting, parching, storing, and cooking. Pottery vessels were used for carrying water, storage, cooking, and serving food and drink. Cahuilla tools included mortars and pestles; manos and metates; fire drills; awls; arrow -straighteners; flint knives; wood, horn, and bone spoons and stirrers; scrapers; and hammerstones. Woven rabbit -skin blankets served to keep people warm in cold weather. Feathered costumes were worn for ceremonial events; and at these events the Cahuilla made music using rattles derived from insect cocoons, turtle and tortoise shells, and deer hoofs, along with wood rasps, bone whistles, bull-roarers, and flutes, to make music. They wove bags, storage pouches, cords, and nets from the fibers of yucca, agave, and other plants (Drucker 1937; Bean 1972, 1978).

4.2.2 Serrano
The Serrano language is classified as being within the Takic language family (Bean and Smith 1978). The Serrano traditional territory generally extended along the San Bernardino Mountains, from Antelope Valley in the west, to as far east as present-day Twentynine Palms; as far south as the Yucaipa Valley, and as far north across the Mojave Desert as Fort Irwin (Bean and Smith 1978). Traditionally, the Serrano organized into moieties made up of exogamous, patrilineal clans (Bean and Smith 1978). Lineage and clan leaders were hereditary ceremonial leaders who held responsibility for sacred bundles and directed the ceremonial life of the clan (Bean and Smith 1978; SMBMI 2024).

Estimates of the number of Serrano living in each village have not been well documented; however, the villages likely held only as many Serrano as could be accommodated by water sources (Stickel and Weinman -Roberts 1980). The villages of Guapiabit and "Amutskupiabit" (Muscupiabit), among others, were visited by Spanish expeditionaries, such as Father Garces in 1776, and members of the Zalvidea and Palomares expeditions in 1806 and 1808 respectively. Garces suggested an estimated 80 people were at Guapiabit, while Zalvidea indicated 46 at the time of his visit. Zalvidea also estimated that 17 to 20 people were residing at Muscupiabit during the same expedition (Sutton and Earle 2017).

Traditionally, Serrano dwellings were circular, domed structures built over an excavated area. These structures were built with fire pits and primarily served as sleeping areas. Ceremonial houses were the only other buildings in the villages and were normally occupied by the village's ceremonial leader (Stickel and Weinman -Roberts 1980).

Chambers Group, Inc. 12
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
The Serrano artifact assemblage is noted to be similar to that of the neighboring Cahuilla and includes musical instruments such as rattles and flutes, utensils, and ornaments such as fire drills, mortars, metates, pipes, beads, awls, and projectile points made from wood, shell, bone, and stone. The Serrano were talented pottery and basket makers. Their pots were made of coiled clay smoothed out with a paddle and set in the sun to dry before being fired in a pit. Serrano Brown ware was sometimes decorated with designs of circles and lines of either red or black (Stickel and Weinman -Roberts 1980).

The Serrano are also known to have created petroglyphs, which include abstract and geometric designs that are often seen with representational figures of sheep, lizards (zoomorphs), and human beings (anthropomorphs). Researchers have proposed that the petroglyphs were records of important events, rough maps, and artistic representations of native life (Stickel and Weinman -Roberts 1980).

After years of violent and force relocations, the Yuhaaviatam clan was resettled on the San Manuel Reservation, which was established under the Mission Relief Act in 1891, and the clan became known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. While the Tribe was ostensibly a self -determining nation, federal government agencies continued to dictate policies that strongly constricted the Tribe's way of life until the mid -1970s. With the establishment of gaming, San Manuel brought about a more secure economy and enabled the Tribe to rebuild its governance capacity (SMBMI 2024). Additionally, resulting funds have allowed San Manuel to better preserve its cultural heritage, and care for its properties under the aegis of the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer.

4.3 HISTORY
The first significant European settlement of California began during the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821) when 21 missions and four presidios were established between San Diego and Sonoma. Although located primarily along the coastal margin, the missions dominated economic and political life over the greater California region. The purpose of the missions was primarily for political control and forced assimilation into Spanish society and conversion of the Native American population to Catholicism, along with economic support to the presidios (Castillo 1978).

The Mexican Period (1821-1848) began with the success of the Mexican Revolution in 1821, but changes to the mission system were slow to follow. When the secularization of the missions occurred in the 1830s, their vast land holdings in California were divided into large land grants called ranchos. The Mexican government granted ranchos throughout California to Spanish and Hispanic soldiers and settlers (Castillo 1978; Cleland 1941). Even after the decree of secularization was issued in 1833 by the Mexican Congress, missionaries continued to operate a small diocesan church. In 1834, the San Gabriel Mission, including over 16,000 cattle, was turned over to the civil administrator (Hoover et al. 1990:150-177).

In 1848, The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican -American War and marked the beginning of the American Period (1848 to present). The discovery of gold that same year sparked the 1849 California Gold Rush, bringing thousands of miners and other new immigrants to California from various parts of the United States as well as the rest of the world, most of whom settled in the northern gold fields. For those settlers who chose to come to southern California, much of their economic prosperity was fueled by cattle ranching rather than by gold. This prosperity, however, came to a halt in the 1860s as a result of severe floods and droughts as well as legal disputes over land boundaries and property ownership, which put many rancho owners into bankruptcy (Castillo 1978; Cleland 1941).

Chambers Group, Inc. 13
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
The Project site is located approximately 5.75 miles northeast of Rancho San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and 8 miles southeast of a portion of Rancho San Bernardino. Rancho San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero was a 48,861 -acre Mexican land grant given in 1846 by Governor Pro Pico to Miguel Pedrorena. Rancho San Bernardino was a 35,509 -acre Mexican land grant given in 1842 by Governor Juan B. Alvarado to Jose del Carmen Lugo, Jose Marra Lugo, Vicente Lugo, and Diego Sepulveda. Following the Mexican -American War, the Lugos and Sepulveda applied to have the grant confirmed by the Public Lands Commission in 1852; the property, however, was previously sold to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1851 becoming the land surrounding the settlement of San Bernardino. The grant to the Lugos and Sepulveda was eventually confirmed and patented in 1865. Rancho San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero was part of the earliest configuration of San Diego County and was later made part of the County of Riverside when portions of both San Diego and San Bernardino counties were apportioned by the California Legislature in 1893 to form the new Riverside County.

City of Beaumont
The origin of the City of Beaumont has been reported by Gunther (1984), who describes that it began modestly in 1866 as a mail stop called "Summit Station," the highest point on the passenger stage route through San Gorgonio Pass. The Summit Station mail stop became a railroad telegraph office for the Southern Pacific Company in 1876. The telegraph office name was changed to "San Gorgonio" in 1884 to coincide with the newly named town site that was established by George C. Egan in 1884. The Southern California Investment Company purchased Egan's town site in 1886 and headed by H.C. Sigler from Beaumont, Texas, renamed the station "Beaumont" ("beautiful mountain" in French). The Beaumont town site was officially surveyed in 1886 by John Goldworthy and filed in San Bernardino County on March 15, 1887. When the County of Riverside was established in 1893, Beaumont was included within the Riverside County boundaries and, therefore, records before 1893 would be in the San Bernardino County Archives and records following 1893 would be in the Riverside County Archives. The City of Beaumont was later incorporated on November 18, 1912.

4.4 GEOLOGY

4.4.1 Geologic Units
The proposed Project is located in the City of Beaumont, within western Riverside County, as depicted on the USGS Beaumont 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle. The Beaumont quadrangle includes the southern margin of the Transverse Range, the northern margin of the San Jacinto Mountains, and the conjoining San Gorgonio Pass valley between the two mountainous segments. The San Gorgonio Pass links the San Gabriel Valley in the west with the Coachella Valley in the east. The San Gorgonio Pass is transected by the Banning Fault, a parallel branch of the San Andreas Fault.

Regionally, the Beaumont area is situated at the convergence of four geomorphic provinces: the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province, including Palm Springs and Palm Desert to the south; the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province, which includes the San Bernardino Mountains, and its descent to the San Gorgonio Pass, to the north, along with the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast; the Mojave Desert Geomorphic Province to the northeast; and the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province, coinciding with the general extent of the Coachella Valley, from the Whitewater River to the Salton Sea.

Thick sequences of Quaternary -age alluvial deposits are widespread in the San Gorgonio Pass.

Chambers Group, Inc. 14
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Along the Transverse Ranges, sequences of Quaternary -age alluvial deposits are exposed along the southern margin of the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains, where drainages and attendant alluvial fans issue from Cherry Canyon, Millard Canyon, Banning Canyon, as well as from other smaller catchments. The moderately sloping Pleistocene and Early Holocene fan deposits have been uplifted on the upper plate of the San Gorgonio Pass Fault Zone, forming terrace landforms, such as the Banning Bench. Late Holocene -age alluvial fans and washes exhibit bar and swale features indicative of more recent activity. Historic -Period flood and debris flows occur locally, as indicated by unvarnished boulder fields, and boulder -lined levees located near the fan apices. The various branches of the San Andreas Fault have created a complex series of active strike slip and reverse faults that have disrupted the continuity of these alluvial deposits (Lancaster et al. 2012).

The proposed Project is underlain by late Pleistocene period alluvial deposits. The predominate formations are Quaternary -era San Gorgonio Pass alluvial fan deposits (Qf) composed of sand and gravel of plutonic and gneissic detritus derived from the dissected lower southern margins of San Bernardino mountains to the north. Immediately south, and intersecting with Qf sediments, are dissected, crudely bedded, light reddish sand and gravel alluvial fan deposits (Qoa), which are derived from metamorphic sedimentary (San Timoteo Formation) and plutonic intrusions (e.g., quartz monzonite) to the south (Dibblee and Minch 2003).

4.4.2 Soils
A tightly buffered Area of Interest (AOI) review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Web Soil Survey of the Project site resulted in the identification of three soil types (Table 1). These AOI surface sediments are indicative of sandy loam soils derived from exposed and underlying granitic bedrock, metasedimentary/metamorphic structures, and igneous intrusions. The greater soil development is represented by Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, at 73.9 percent of the Project site, and Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, at 29.9 percent of the Project site, representative of granitic -derived soils located within alluvial fans and terraces. Terrace escarpments, at 5.2 percent of the Project site, are representative of soils derived from unspecified lithic and sediment sources (USDA 2025).

Table 1: USDA Soil Types within the Project Site
Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
(RaB2)
Alluvium derived from granite

73.9 Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, severely eroded (RaC3)
Alluvium derived from granite

20.9 Terrace escarpments (TeG)
Alluvium derived from mixed
sources

5.2 Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
15

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
SECTION 5.0 - METHODS

5.1 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Chambers Group requested a records search from the CHRIS SCIC at California State University, San Diego, on December 20, 2024. A records search of a half -mile radius study area was requested to provide additional context to the Project site and surrounding vicinity and inform this review. Sources consulted in conjunction with the records search included the NRHP, CRHR, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory, CHRIS Inventory, ethnographic information, local inventories, and historical literature, maps, and aerial imagery. Results of the records search are detailed below and attached in Confidential Appendix B.

Chambers Group conducted additional background research to help identify potentially significant cultural and archaeological signatures on the landscape. This research involved reviewing the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), GLO survey plats, publicly available data sources, and historical aerial photographs.

In addition to the above research, Chambers Group submitted a request to the California NAHC for a SLF search, on December 20, 2024. This search will identify if any resources important to Native Americans have been recorded within the Project site and surrounding vicinity. The NAHC will provide the results and a list of affiliated tribal representatives to contact for additional information.

5.2 FIELD SURVEY
Chambers Group conducted a pedestrian field survey of the entire Project site. The pedestrian survey included a systematic surface inspection, adjusting the intensity of visual inspection based on ground surface visibility and probability of cultural resources. The cultural resources survey was conducted pursuant to the County of Riverside Planning Department Cultural Resources Investigation Standards and in accordance with the professional standards, as outlined in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (NPS 1983). The Project site was surveyed using transects spaced no greater than 15 meters apart. Transects were conducted along both margins of the existing road surfaces throughout the entire APE corridor, which ranged from 24 to 34 meters wide within the existing ROW. This survey corridor was constrained by existing development and approved access, which did not include private lands outside the ROW. Additionally, both proposed staging areas were surveyed using transects with a maximum spacing of 15 meters.

All undisturbed or exposed ground surfaces within the Project site were examined for prehistoric (precontact) artifacts (e.g., flaked lithic tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, and fire - affected rock [FAR]), ecofacts (bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures and buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic -era artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, and ceramics).

Existing ground disturbances (e.g., cutbanks, ditches, burrows, et cetera) were also visually inspected.

Photographs of the Project site, including current conditions, previously recorded cultural resources, connector pipes, catch basins, and other inlets, were documented using a digital camera.

All field notes, photographs, and records pertaining to the current study are on file at the Chambers Group San Diego office.

Chambers Group, Inc. 16
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California

5.3 PERSONNEL
Chambers Group Cultural Resources Department Lead Lucas Tutschulte provided task management support. Chambers Group cultural resources specialists Efrain Arroyo, MA, RPA (Secretary of the Interior [SOI]-qualified archaeologist), and Kellie Kandybowicz, BA, conducted the pedestrian field survey of the entire Project site. Efrain Arroyo also served as a principal investigator and primary author of this report.

Richard Shultz, MA, RPA, Qualified Archaeologist per SOI and Riverside County qualifications, served as Principal Investigator support for cultural resources, co-authored this report, and provided oversight throughout this study.

Chambers Group, Inc. 17
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
SECTION 6.0 — RESULTS

6.1 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES WITHIN STUDY AREA The results of the records search were received from the SCIC on February 11, 2025. Results of the records search are detailed below and attached in Confidential Appendix B. The records search results identified 27 previous cultural resource studies (reports) within a half -mile radius of the Project site (Table 2), with four of those studies within the Project site and one adjacent to it, all of which are bolded in the table below.

Table 2: Studies within a Half -Mile Radius
Report No.

Year
Author(s)
Report Title
Affiliation
Resources
RI -02203
1987
Drover,
Christopher E.

An Archaeological
Assessment of the
Hovchild Property,
Riverside County,
California
RI -02210
1986
Underwood, J., J.

Cleland, C.M.

Wood, and R.

Apple
Preliminary Cultural
Resources Survey Report
for the US Telecom Fiber
Optic Cable Project, From
San Timoteo Canyon to
Socorro, Texas: The
California Segment
Dames and
Moore
33-000053, 33-000159,
33-000893, 33-001634,
33-001767, 33-001768,
33-003075, 33-003076,
33-003077, 33-012818,
33-012819, 33-012820,
33-012821
RI -02917
1989
Davis, McMillan
Cultural Resources
Survey of the Proposed
Sewer System for the City
of Beaumont California.

RECON
33-002385, 33-002386
RI -03002
1990
Drover,
Christopher E.

Environmental Impact
Evaluation: An
Archaeological
Assessment of Seneca
Springs Project, Riverside
County, Beaumont,
California
33-004038
RI -03997
1996
Shepard, Richard
S. and Jeanette
A. McKenna
A Phase I Cultural
Resources Investigation
of a 3 -Acre Parcel and
Associated Pipeline,
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California
McKenna et
al./EIP
Associates
33-007898
RI -05136
2003
Archer. Gavin H.
and Marian L.

Kearin
Cultural Resource
Inventory and
Paleontologic
Assessment Hovchild
Property, City of
Beaumont, County of
Riverside, California
The Keith
Companies
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
18

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Table 2: Studies within a Half -Mile Radius
Report No.

Year
Author(s)
Report Tile
Affiliation
Resources
RI -06256
2006
Ahmet, Koral and
Evelyn Chandler
Cultural Resources
Survey of a 29 -Acre
Parcel, Located West of
Manzanita Road Near the
City of Beaumont,
Riverside County,
California
ECORP
Consulting,
Inc.

RI -07052
2006
McKenna et al.

A Cultural Resources
Investigation, of the
Proposed San Gorgonio
Village, Project Area,
Approximately 23 Acres,
of Land in the City of
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California.

McKenna et
al.

RI -07288
2007
Mariam Dandul,
Daniel Ballester,
and Laura H.

Shaker
Identification and
Evaluation of Historic
Properties Recycled
Water System in and
Near the Cities of
Beaumont and Calimesa,
Riverside County,
California
CRM Tech
33-009498, 33-015720
RI -07364
2007
Crews, Rachel G.
and Jay K. Sander
Archaeological and
Paleontological
Monitoring of a 29.7 -
Acre Project Area at the
Northwest Corner of the
First Street and
Commerce Way
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California
Chambers
Group, Inc.

RI -08886
2012
Bai "Tom" Tang
and Michael
Hogan
Historical/ Archaeological
Resources Survey Report:

Beaumont Distribution
Center Project, City of
Beaumont, Riverside
County
CRM Tech
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
19

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Table 2: Studies within a Half -Mile Radius
Report No.

Year
Author(s)
Report Tale
Affiliation
Resources
RI -09167
2013
Roderic McLean,
Natalie Brodie,
Jacqueline Hall,
Shannon
Carmack, Phil
Fulton, Ingri
Quon, Erin
Martinelli,
Richard Erickson,
and Jay Michalski
Cultural Resources
Assessment and Class III
Inventory Volume I West
of Devers Project San
Bernardino and Riverside
Counties, California.

LSA
33-000179, 33-001296,
33-002262, 33-003446,
33-003449, 33-004213,
33-006015, 33-006103,
33-006107, 33-006109,
33-006156, 33-006168,
33-006219, 33-007296,
33-007870, 33-008334,
33-008347, 33-009498,
33-011265, 33-012642,
33 012643, 33 013427,
33 013429, 33 013430,
33-013431, 33-013432,
33 013433, 33 014871,
33-015033, 33-015035,
33 015183, 33 015184,
33-015185, 33-015186,
33-015189, 33-015720,
33-015760, 33-015843,
33-015845, 33-015992,
33-016898, 33-016904,
33-016907, 33-016961,
33-016993, 33-018123,
33-018648, 33-019671,
33-020721
RI -09183
2014
Carrie D. Wills,
Sarah A.

Williams, and
Kathleen A.

Crawford
Cultural Resources
Records Search and Site
Visit Results for T -Mobile
West, LLC Candidate
IE04451A (CM451
Beaumont Civic Center),
550 East 6th Street,
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California
Environment
al
Assessment
Specialists,
Inc.

RI -09460
2015
Bai "Tom" Tang
and Michael
Hogan
Phase I
HistoricaI/Archaeological
Resource Survey Seasons
at Beaumont Project City
of Beaumont Riverside,
California
CRM Tech
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
20

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Table 2: Studies within a Half -Mile Radius
Report No.

Year
Author(s)
Report Tile
Affiliation
Resources
RI -09669
2015
Carrie D. Wills,
Sarah A.

Williams, and
Kathleen A.

Crawford
Cultural Resource
Records Search for Cellco
Partnership and their
Controlled Affliates as
Verizon Wireless
Candidate 'Lotus', 40
Pennslyvania Avenue,
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California
HELIX
Environment
al Planning,
Inc.

RI -09984
1998
Roger D. Mason
and Wayne H.

Bonner
Cultural Resources
Records Search And
Literature Review For A
Pacific Bell Mobile
Services
Telecommunications
Facility: CM 451-11 City
Of Beaumont, Riverside
County, California
Chambers
Group, Inc.

RI -10449
2018
Gabriel Ocampo
Archaeological Sensitivity
Assessment RV90XSB14A
/ 9CAB012642A, E. 6th
Street & Palm Avenue,
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California 92223,
EBI Project Number:
6117007121, TCNS
Number 165348
EBI
Consulting
RI -10461
2015
William T.

Eckhardt,
Matthew M.

DeCarlo, Doug
Mengers, Sherri
Andrews, Don
Laylander, and
Tony Quach
Archaeological
Investigations and
Monitoring for the
Construction of the
Devers-Palo Verde No. 2
Transmission Line
Project, Riverside County,
California
ASM
Affiliates
33-018128, 33-020289,
33-020290, 33-020294,
33 020317, 33 020318,
33-020319, 33-020320,
33 020321, 33 020322,
33 020323, 33 020324,
33-020325, 33-020336,
33 020409, 33 020410,
33 020975, 33 020976,
33 020977, 33 020978,
33-020979, 33-021001,
33-021014, 33-022103,
33-022105, 33-023799
RI -10478
2018
Jeanette A.

McKenna
A Phase I CEQA/Class III
NEPA (NHPA Section 106)
Investigation for the
6th/Maple Septic
Conversion Project in the
City of Beaumont,
Riverside Co., California
McKenna et
al.
33-028614
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
21

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Table 2: Studies within a Half -Mile Radius
Report No.

Year
Author(s)
Report Tuttle
Affiliation
Resources
RI -10617
2018
Sarah A.

Williams, Carrie
D. Wills, and
Kathleen A.

Crawford
Cultural Resources
Records Search and Site
Visit Results for T -Mobile
West, LLC IE04451A
(CM451 Beaumont Civic
Cent), 550 East Sixth
Street, Beaumont,
Riverside County,
California
Environment
al
Assessment
Specialists,
Inc.

RI -10960
2019
David Brunzell
Cultural Resources
Assessment of the
Beaumont Service
Station Project,
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California
BCR
Consulting,
LLC
RI -10998
2018
Bai Tang and
Michael Hogan
Phase I
Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey,
Pennsylvania Avenue
Widening Project, City of
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California
CRM Tech
RI -10998
2021
Bai "Tom" Tang
Addendum to Phase I
Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey:

Pennsylvania Avenue
Widening Project, City of
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California
CRM Tech
RI -11024
2021
David Brunzell
Cultural Resources
Assessment of the
IE04451A Project,
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California (BCR
Consulting Project No.

ACE2112)
BCR
Consulting,
LLC
RI -11188
2020
Dustin Merrick,
Breana
Campbell -King,
and Christopher
A. Duran
Cultural Resources
Technical Memorandum
for the 6th Street and
Pennsylvania Gas Station
and Convenience Store
Project, City of
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California
Rincon
Consultants,
Inc.

Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
22

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Table 2: Studies within a Half -Mile Radius
Report No.

Year
Author(s)
Report Title
Affiliation
Resources
RI -11322
2021
Ben Kerridge
and Daniel
Ballester
Paleontological
Resources Assessment
Report Pennsylvania
Avenue Widening
Project, City of
Beaumont, Riverside
County, California
CRM Tech
RI 11342
2021
Ben Kerridge and
Salvadore Boites
Phase I
Historical/Archaeological
Resources Survey:

Second Street
Improvement Project,
City of Beaumont,
Riverside County,
California
CRM Tech
Note: Bold text indicates studies within or adjacent to Project site

6.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN STUDY AREA The records search results identified 53 previously recorded cultural resources within a half -mile radius of the Project site (Table 3), with three of those resources documented within the Project site (P-33- 009498/CA-RIV-6381 H, P-33-023484/CA-RIV-23484, P-33-028622). Resource P-33-009498/CA-RIV-6381H is a historical rail line, known as Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) (formerly the Southern Pacific Railroad [SPRR]), constructed in the 1870s. Resource P-33-023484/CA-RIV-23484 comprises historic -period wood - pole structures, part of the existing Southern California Edison (SCE), Memphis 12 -Kilovolt (kV) Distribution Line. Resource P-33-028622 is a historic -period cemetery, known as the Stewart Sunnyslope Cemetery, constructed in the 1880s.

It should be noted that Confidential Figure 3 (Appendix B) does not depict all the cultural resources listed in Table 3. Figure 3 depicts a defined area (resource district) containing historic -period buildings, aggregated for visual clarity, while Table 3 lists all the historic -period buildings within that defined area.

Table 3: Resources within a Half -Mile Radius
Primary No.

Trinomial
Type
Attribute
Codes
Recorded By
Reports
P-33-001038
CA-RIV-001038
Site
Prehistoric
AP02 AP04
AP06
1953 (G.A. Smith,
n/a);
1976 (Eastvold, n/a)
RI -00534
P-33-006094
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (G. Bronson,
Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
23

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Table 3: Resources within a Half -Mile Radius
Primary No.

Trinomial
Type
yp e
Attribute<
Codes
Recorded By
Reports
P-33-006095
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (G. Bronson,
Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-006096
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (G. Bronson,
Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-006097
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (G. Bronson,
Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-006098
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (G. Bronson,
Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-006099
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (G. Bronson,
Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-006100
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (G. Bronson,
Riverside County
Historical Comm)
P-33-006101
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (G. Bronson,
Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-006102
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (G. Bronson,
Riverside County
Historical Comm.)
P-33-006170
Building
Historic
HP03
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.);
1993 (Virginia A.

Ross, San Gorgonio
Pass Historical
Society)
P-33-006171
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Jim Warner,
Riv. Co. Historical
Comm.)
P-33-006172
Building
Historic
HP03
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006173
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.,
Riv. Co. Historical
Comm.)
P-33-006174
Building
Historic
HP03; HP41
1983 (Jim Warner,
Riv. Co. Historical
Comm.)
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
24

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Table 3: Resources within a Half -Mile Radius
Primary No.

Trinomial
yp e
Type
Attribute
Codes
Recorded By
Reports
P-33-006175
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006176
Building
Historic
HP16
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006177
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006178
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006179
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006180
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006183
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006186
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006187
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006188
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006189
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronston, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006190
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronston, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006191
Building
Historic
HP06
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006192
Building
Historic
HP16
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006193
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
25

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Table 3: Resources within a Half -Mile Radius
Primary No.

Trinomial
yp e
Type
Attribute<
Codes
Recorded By
Reports
P-33-006194
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006195
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006197
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006198
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006199
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006200
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Jim Warner,
Riv. Co. Historical
Comm.)
P-33-006201
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Jim Warner,
Riv. Co. Historical
Comm.)
P-33-006202
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006203
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006204
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006212
Building
Historic
HP38
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006213
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006214
Building
Historic
HP06
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006215
Building
Historic
HP12; HP14;
HP15
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.);
1999 (Judith Marvin,
Foothill Resources,
Ltd)
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
26

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Table 3: Resources within a Half -Mile Radius
Primary No.

Trinomial
yp e
Type
Attribute<
Codes
Recorded By
Reports
P-33-006216
Building
Historic
HP06
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-006220
Building
Historic
HP02
1983 (Gwen
Bronson, Riv. Co.

Historical Comm.)
P-33-009498
CA-RIV-006381
Structure
Historic
HP39
1966 (Ashkar, S.,
Jones & Stokes);
2003 (Carrie
Chasteen, Myra L.

Frank & Associates);
2005 (Taniguchi,
Christeen, Galvin &
Associates);
2009 (Wilson, S. and
K. Chimel, ICF Jones
& Stokes);
2012 (Scott
Kremkau, SRI);
2015 (T. Baurley and
J.M. Sanka, L&L
Environmental, Inc.);
2016 (Daneil
Leonard, HDR);
2017 (P. Moloney, R.

Elder, W. Blodgett,
Applied EarthWorks,
Inc.)
RI -04427,
RI -04430,
RI -04771,
RI -05452,
RI -06258,
RI -06259,
RI -06583,
RI -06615,
RI -06707,
RI -07288,
RI 07586,
RI -07770,
RI -07802,
RI -07970,
RI 08012,
RI -08374,
RI -08491,
RI 08538,
RI 08581,
RI -08844,
RI -08861,
RI -09151,
RI -09167,
RI -09734,
RI 10040,
RI 10374,
RI -10435,
RI -10652,
RI -10798,
RI -10806,
RI -11171
P-33-020723
CA-RIV-010645
Site
Historic
AH07
2011 (Joshua
Trampier, Statistical
Research, Inc.)
P-33-022386
Building
Historic
HP02
2013 (C. Morgan,
LSA Associates, Inc)
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
27

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Table 3: Resources within a Half -Mile Radius
Primary No.

Trinomial
Type
Age
Attribute<
Codes
Recorded By
Reports
P-33-023484
CA-RIV-023484
Structure
Historic
HP11
2013 (LSA, LSA
Associates, Inc.);
2014 (Audry
Williams, Southern
California Edison
International)
RI 10157,
RI -10435
P-33-023485
Building
Historic
HP02
2013 (LSA, LSA
Associates, Inc.)
P-33-023526
Building
Historic
HP03
2013 (LSA, LSA
Associates, Inc.)
P-33-028622
Building
Historic
HP40
2015 (K.A Crawford,
Crawford Historic
Services)
RI -10502
Note: Bold text indicates resources within the Project site P-3 3 -009498/CA-RIV-6381 H
This resource, the UPPR and SPRR rail lines, was initially recorded by S. Ashkar and others of Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. in 1999, and subsequently updated in 2005 by C. Taniguchi, in 2009 by S. Wilson and K Chmiel, in 2012 by S. Kremkau, and in 2015 by A. Newcomb and J. Carvajal. The UPRR/SPRR rail lines were constructed in the 1870s and run from Los Angeles to Yuma, Arizona. The initial recording in 1999 consisted of the UPRR (historically the SPRR), which crosses California and includes the Southern Pacific, the Los Angeles and Salt Lake, the Pacific Electric, and the Los Angeles and San Pedro lines. In 2005, a 720 - foot segment of the UPRR/SPRR in Coachella Valley was evaluated for NRHP eligibility and was recommended not eligible. In 2015, a 0.1 -mile (0.1 -kilometer, 528 -foot) segment of the UPRR/SPRR was recorded in Whitewater and was determined, due to the general lack of integrity (from updates and changes to the rail line in the modern era), the segment would not contribute to the overall significance of the entire rail line should that property be determined eligible in the future.

P-33-023484/CA-RIV-23484
This resource, the Memphis 12 kV electrical distribution circuits, was initially recorded in 2013 by LSA Associates, Inc., and subsequently in 2014 by A. Williams of SCE International. The resource comprises historic -period wood -pole structures, part of the existing SCE electrical transmission and distribution lines.

The initial recording in 2013 inventoried a telecommunications line segment in Redlands with approximately 22 structures dating from 1929 to 1967. In 2014, the Memphis 12kV electrical distribution circuit running through San Timoteo Canyon, Redlands, constructed in 1970, was evaluated and recommended ineligible for the NRHP/CRHR due to a lack of historical integrity of materials and its common and indistinctive nature as a functional and utilitarian wood -pole line.

Chambers Group, Inc. 28
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
P-33-028622
This resource, the Stewart Sunnyslope Cemetery, was recorded in 2015 by K.A. Crawford of Crawford Historic Services. The 13 -acre cemetery, located in Beaumont, features a storage and utility area with a residential structure now used a garage facility, associated storage structures, arch structure with the cemetery name, and a large niche area. The Stewart family, one of the original non-native families to settle in Beaumont, created a family cemetery in the 1880s. The original six acres of land were donated to the city of Beaumont in 1888 for use as a cemetery for Beaumont residents. The Beaumont Public Cemetery District was formed in 1921 with Sunnyslope Cemetery as part of the district. The cemetery is currently part of the Summit Cemetery District, which was formed from several local cemetery districts in 1996. The resource and associated buildings were evaluated and recommended not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR as they did not meet any of the criteria for historical or architectural significance.

6.3 ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
The GLO survey plats from 1857 and 1867 illustrate a ravine in the southeastern portion of Section 10 and the southwestern portion of Section 11. The 1880 survey plat depicts the SPRR crossing from Section 9 into Section 10. However, the 1897 survey plat does not illustrate any features within the half -mile radius study area. Aerial photographs from 1940 to 1972 reveal increased development within the Project site.

Of particular note, aerial photographs from 1940 and 1953 indicate the presence of now -absent historic - period structures within the two open parcels of the Project site (NETR 2025; UCSB 2025).

6.3.1 Built Environment
Chambers Group reviewed properties listed on the BERD, General Land Office (GLO) survey plats, and historical aerial photographs. A search of the Riverside County BERD revealed no recorded built environment resources within the Project site, although properties were identified within the half -mile study area. A review of historical aerial photographs covering the Project site revealed historic -period structures within the open parcels that are no longer extant. The 1940 aerial photograph indicates the presence of a building in the northeast corner of the western open parcel, north of the I-10. The 1953 aerial photograph indicates a ranch in the center and northern sections and a house in the southern section of the same parcel. The 1953 aerial photograph also indicates an outbuilding in the southern section of the eastern open parcel. However, by 1967 these structures are no longer visible on historic aerial imagery and appear to have been demolished or removed. Between 1940 and 1972, there is increased development within the Project site, including buildings, paved roads, and anthropized landscape (NETR 2025; UCSB 2025).

Chambers Group, Inc. 29
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California

6.4 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION AND AB 52 CONSULTATION The NAHC response provided contact information for 35 tribal representatives from 16 tribes that may have additional information regarding TCRs within or adjacent to the Project site. The 16 Native American Tribes identified by the NAHC include:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupefio Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pechanga Band of Indians
• Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe
• Ramona Band of Cahuilla
• Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
• Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Serrano Nation of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luisefio Indians
• Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
On behalf of the City, Chambers Group sent AB 52 notification letters via email to the 35 tribal representatives on the Native American contact list, on January 31, 2025. Chambers Group supported the City with tracking responses received to date. These include responses from Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. All responses received to date and provided to Chambers Group for tracking support are included in Appendix A.

On February 25, 2025, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians sent via email a formal request to initiate AB 52 consultation with the City. The Tribe stated that the Project site, while outside of their reservation, lies within their traditional use areas, is considered culturally sensitive, and contains sites of potential impact.

The Tribe requested that specifics be discussed in a confidential setting during consultation, due to the sensitive nature of the information involved. The Tribe states that they reserve the right to participate fully in all CEQA processes and look forward to working with the City to protect their cultural resources.

On February 27, 2025, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians sent via email a formal request to initiate AB 52 consultation with the City. The Tribe stated that the Project site, while outside of their reservation, lies within their traditional use areas. The Tribe requested a cultural resources inventory prior to any development activities, copies of the records search and any cultural resource documentation, and the presence of a cultural resource monitor during ground -disturbing activities.

As of this writing, the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe stated they do not wish to comment on the Project and defer to local Tribes and support their determinations; the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians stated they defer any comments to Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians; the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Chambers Group, Inc. 30
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
stated they will not request consulting party status due to the Project's location outside their ancestral territory; the Pala Band of Mission Indians stated they decline consultation and defer to local Tribes due to the Project's location outside their Traditional Use Area; Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians stated they are not aware of affected cultural resources and do not believe formal consultation is necessary at this stage; AB 52 consultation between the City and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians is ongoing; AB 52 consultation between the City and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians is ongoing. Please refer to the Environmental Document prepared for the Project for further details and results regarding the ongoing AB 52 consultation.

6.5 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
Chambers Group cultural resources specialists Efrain Arroyo, MA, RPA (Secretary of the Interior [SOI]- qualified archaeologist), and Kellie Kandybowicz, BA, conducted a pedestrian field survey of the entire Project site, including the proposed pipeline alignment and laydown and storage yards, on February 20, 2025. The Project site is primarily within a developed area, characterized by buildings, paved roads, traffic signals, utility lines, railroad tracks, and maintained landscapes, excluding two parcels of undeveloped, disturbed land. Modern refuse was observed throughout the Project site. Visual inspection of the surface revealed no evidence of prehistoric or historic -era resources within the Project site.

These two open parcels of undeveloped, disturbed land (Photographs 1 and 2), located approximately 80 meters (292 feet) south of the East 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue intersection, had 90 to 100 percent ground surface visibility. The western open parcel (comprises APN 418122021 and 418160006) is

1.4 acres, while the eastern open parcel (comprises APN 418123011, 418123012, and 418123003) is 1.2 acres. As noted earlier, the 1940 aerial photograph indicates the presence of a building in the northeast corner of the western open parcel, north of the I-10. The 1953 aerial photograph indicates a ranch in the center and northern sections and a house in the southern section of the same parcel. The 1953 aerial photograph also indicates an outbuilding in the southern section of the eastern open parcel (NETR 2025; UCSB 2025). However, the current survey found no evidence of these historic -period structures.

Approximately 50 meters (164 feet) south of I-10, the UPRR/SPRR rail lines (P-33-009498/CA-RIV-6381H) traverse the Project site (Photograph 3), spanning approximately 23 meters (75 feet). Moreover, the SCE Memphis 12kV Distribution Line (P-33-023484/CA-RIV-23484) traverses the Project site (Photograph 4), extending approximately 234 meters (768 feet) from the intersection of East 1st Street and Pennsylvania Avenue to the T -junction of East 1st Street and Berkshire Avenue. Furthermore, the northern boundary of Stewart Sunnyslope Cemetery (P-33-028622), located south of East 1st Avenue, slightly intersects the Project site (Photograph 5). Finally, at the southeast corner of the T -junction of East 1st Street and Berkshire Avenue, where the Project site terminates, an existing pipe discharges into an earthen channel.

No evidence of cultural resources was observed during the field survey.

Chambers Group, Inc. 31
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
SECTION 7.0 — RECOMMENDATIONS
Chambers Group conducted a cultural resources study of the Project site in compliance with CEQA and NHPA requirements and standards. Archival record searches, a pedestrian field survey, and background research of the Project site were conducted as part of this cultural resource study. The NAHC SLF search identified that there were no sacred land files within the study area. The CHRIS records search identified four previous cultural resource studies and three previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site. As presently designed, the proposed Project will not have direct impacts on the three previously documented resources that overlap with, or are directly adjacent to, the Project site. Further, the proposed Project, as currently designed, will have minimal permanent impacts or effects as the new drainage infrastructure will be installed underground with only temporary potential impacts during the construction phase. Once the new drainage infrastructure is installed, there will be very minimal visible changes to the overall conditions throughout the Project site. No evidence of previously undocumented cultural resources was observed during the field survey. Based on the results of the records search review, background research, and field survey, no impacts to cultural resources are expected.

Based on the results of this study, which did not identify any historic properties within the Project site, Chambers Group recommends a finding of no adverse effect to historic properties under Section 106 of NHPA. However, for post -review discoveries of cultural resources, the Project is required to adhere to 36 CFR 800.13(b), "discoveries without prior planning," and industry -standard best management practices regarding the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, detailed below.

If cultural resources are encountered during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) will be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. Ground - disturbing activities will not resume until all the stipulations of 36 CFR 800.13(b)and (c) are satisfied and the lead permitting agency has authorized a continuance. If the discovery proves to be significant under NHPA, additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be necessary to mitigate any significant impacts.

Chambers Group recommends the following measures and related protocols, in conformance with 36 CFR 800.13(b), "discoveries without prior planning," and industry -standard best management practices regarding the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, as well as the City's General Plan Update Goal

8.11 and related policies, to be further outlined and incorporated into a CRMP for the associated Project construction activity. If any cultural resources are identified, they would need to be evaluated for eligibility for the CRHR and NRHP. Evaluation for archaeological sites consists of an archaeological testing program.

If determined eligible for CRHR or NRHP (a historical resource, per CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)), by the CEQA lead agency or the SHPO, or a historic property (as defined under Section 106 of NHPA), further management, consisting of the appropriate mitigation, treatment, or data recovery for archaeological sites and documentation for historical structures, would be required if avoidance is not feasible.

Chambers Group recommends the following mitigation measures to be implemented as part of Project approval to ensure that potential impacts to cultural resources are less than significant.

MM CUL-1
The City shall retain the services of a Qualified Archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The Qualified Archaeologist shall remain on -call throughout the Project.

Upon approval or request by the City, a Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan (CRMP) shall be prepared to outline more specific protocols and procedures for monitoring cultural resources, Chambers Group, Inc. 32
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
emphasizing higher probability areas within the Project site. The CRMP shall also provide further protocols and procedures for any necessary mitigation, treatment, and data recovery of unanticipated discovery of cultural resources. The CRMP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The development and implementation of the CRMP shall include consultations with the City, any Native American Tribal groups that may be participating in the Project and shall be overseen by the Qualified Archaeologist retained for the Project.

MM CUL-2
MM-CUL-3
In the event of the discovery of previously unidentified and/or potential cultural resources, the City and/or its Contractor shall immediately cease all work activities within an exclusion area of no less than 50 feet radius surrounding the discovery. The City or its Contractor shall immediately contact the City and the City -retained on -call Qualified Archaeologist. Except in the case of cultural items that fall within the scope of the California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, or California PRC Section 5097.98, the discovery of any cultural resource within the Project site shall not be grounds for a project -wide "stop work" notice or otherwise interfere with the Project's continuation except as set forth in this mitigation measure. Additionally, all consulting Native American Tribal groups that requested notification of any unanticipated discovery of cultural resources on the Project shall be notified appropriately. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during construction, the City -retained Qualified Archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the materials prior to resuming any construction -related activities in the vicinity of the find. If a CRMP is prepared for the Project, the protocols for monitoring, mitigation, or treatment of any unanticipated discovery of cultural resources will be implemented. In all cases, if the Qualified Archaeologist determines that the discovery constitutes a significant historical resource, as defined per CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a), and/or a historic property, as defined under Section 106 of NHPA, and it cannot be avoided, the City shall implement an archaeological data recovery program.

If a CRMP is prepared and implemented with monitoring conducted, or if cultural resources are discovered during the Project, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a report summarizing the monitoring program and/or addressing any prehistoric or historic archaeological finds. All reporting shall be submitted to the SCIC, as required.

HUMAN REMAINS - LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. In the event that human remains are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, then the Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and California PRC) Section 5097.98. If human remains are found during ground -disturbing activities, State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Medical Examiner -Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Medical Examiner -Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American ancestry, the Medical Examiner -Coroner shall notify the NAHC, which shall notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials (NPS 1983).

Chambers Group, Inc. 33
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
SECTION 8.0 - FIGURES AND PHOTOGRAPHS
Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity Map
Chambers Group, Inc. 34
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Figure 2: Area of Potential Effects Map
II Area of Potential Effects
Figure 2
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Area of Potential Effects
175 350 700
Feet
Name 21601 IleaimorIKI
amtoae x3SsaIIIAI<orp .
alS
Chambers Group, Inc. 35
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501

PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1:

Undeveloped,
disturbed parcel west
of Pennsylvania
Avenue. View to the
northeast.

Photograph 2:

Undeveloped,
disturbed parcel east of
Pennsylvania Avenue.

View to the northeast.

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Photograph 3: P-33-
009498/CA-RIV-6381H,
rail lines. View to the
west.

Photograph 4: P-33-
023484/CA-R I V-23484,
SCE Memphis 12kV
Distribution Line. View
to the east.

Chambers Group, Inc. 37
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501
Photograph 5: P-33-
028622, Stewart
Sunnyslope Cemetery.

View to the south from
Project site.

Photograph 6:

Pennsylvania Avenue,
south of Interstate 10.

View to the south.

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
SECTION 9.0 — REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell J.
1972 Mukat's People. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell J., and Katherine S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh (from the Earth): Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Bean, Lowell J., and Charles R. Smith
1978 Serrano. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 570-574. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources: Introduction. California Department of Transportation with the California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento: 2.

Castillo, Edward D.
1978 The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 99-127. William C.

Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Cleland, Robert G.
1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-1870. Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

Crawford, K.A.
2015 DPR Site Record for P-33-028622. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, California State University, San Diego.

Dibblee, Thomas W., and John A. Minch
2003 Geological Map of the Beaumont Quadrangle, Riverside County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-114. 1:24,000.

Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions V: Southern California. University of California Anthropological Records 1(1):1-52. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Erlandson, Jon M.
1994 Early Hunter -Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York.

Chambers Group, Inc. 39
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
General Land Office (GLO)
1857 (1867, 1880,1897)Township 3 South, Range 1 West, San Bernardino Meridian. Survey Plat.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. https://glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx .

Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing Company. Riverside, California.

Hooper, Lucille
1920 The Cahuilla Indians. American Archaeology and Ethnology. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 1990 Historic Spots in California. Edited by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press.

Stanford, California. 4th Edition.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Koerper, Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1-34.

Lancaster, Jeremy T., Cheryl A. Hayhurst, and Trinda L. Bedrossian 2012 Preliminary Geologic Map of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California Palm Springs 30' x 60' Quadrangle. California Geological Survey Special Report 217, Plate 24.

Leonard, Daniel
2016 DPR Site Record for P-33-009498/CA-RIV-6381H. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, California State University, San Diego.

LSA Associates, Inc.
2013 DPR Site Record for 023484/CA-RIV-23484. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, California State University, San Diego.

Mason, Roger D., and Mark L. Peterson
1994 Newport Coast Archeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems, Analysis and Discussion, Volume I. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach. The Keith Companies Archaeological Division, Costa Mesa. On file, Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine.

McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press. The University of Michigan.

Chambers Group, Inc. 40
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

National Park Service (NPS)
1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. 48 FR 44716-42.
1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15.

Department of the Interior, Washington D. C.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR)
2025 NETRonline: Historic Aerial Images. Aerial Images: 1966, 1967, 1972, 1978, 1980, 1985, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022. Accessed February 2025 at https://www.historicaerials.com/ .

Newcomb, Alyssa, and Julia Carvajal
2015 DPR Site Record for P-33-009498/CA-RIV-6381H. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, California State University, San Diego.

Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King
1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38, National Park Service.

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI)
2024 History. Electronic file accessed at https://sanmanuel-nsn.gov/culture/history .

Stickel, Gary E., and Lois J. Weinman -Roberts
1980 An Overview of the Cultural Resources of the Mojave Desert. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Riverside.

Strong, William D.
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology 26:1-358.

Sutton, Mark Q., and David E. Earle
2017 The Desert Serrano of the Mojave River. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 53(2-3):1-61.

University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB)
2025 Flight C_1940D, Frame D-16, 1 January 1940; Flight AXM_1953B, Frame 4K-95, 1 January 1953; Flight AXM_1967, Frame 1HH-217, 1 January 1967. Courtesy of UCSB Library Geospatial Collection.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2025 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. Accessed January 2025 at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Geological Survey (USGS)
2021 Beaumont, California 7.5 -minute Topographic Quadrangle.

Chambers Group, Inc. 41
21501

Cultural Resources Study Report for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project, Beaumont, Riverside County, California
Wallace, William
1978 Post -Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Williams, Audry
2014 DPR Site Record for 023484/CA-RIV-23484. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, California State University, San Diego
Chambers Group, Inc. 42
21501

Ldn Consu/tinges Inc,
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333, Murrieta CA 92562 phone 760-473-1253 February 3, 2025
Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
SUBJECT: Construction Noise Evaluation for the Master Drainage Plan — Storm Drain Improvement Project (Pennsylvania Avenue and 6th Street City of Beaumont CA
The firm of Ldn Consulting is pleased to submit the following noise analysis for the proposed Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Storm Drain Improvement Project in the City of Beaumont CA. The purpose of the noise evaluation is to examine the construction noise conditions for the MDP Storm Drain Improvement construction and recommend reduction measures, if needed, for compliance with the City of Beaumont Noise standards, plans and policy goals for noise.

Project Location/Description
The Proposed Project would construct approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -in to 102 -inch RCP along 6th Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, and East 1st Street in the City to handle anticipated future flows. Manholes would be constructed for maintenance access at intervals of no more than 500 feet at the end of each line. Additional components to be installed include inlets and outlets to facilitate efficient entry and exit from the system. The RCP would feature grated openings to prevent the accumulation of debris. Some RCP demolition would occur but most of the existing structures would be protected. Approximately 13,000 cubic yards of material will be removed from the site to allow for the installation of the RCP and subgrade and approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material will be brought back to backfill and build up the structure necessary to reconstruct the roads.

The Proposed Project would include traffic control measures such as signs, barriers, and flaggers to ensure safety and maintain vehicle and pedestrian access along the right-of-way. Best management practices (BMPs) would include basins and silt fences to address soil erosion and protect water quality during construction. The affected right-of-way would be restored after installation of the RCP. The RCP would be installed at a depth no greater than 25 feet to allow for future construction and improvements in the area. Construction is anticipated to commence in the summer of 2025 and conclude in the spring of 2026. 2/3/2025 1

24-55 MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Noise

Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Ldn Consulting, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Glen View High School 0
Stewart Park
E 9th St
a,
a
a
rn
7th St m
O
E 8th St
a, a, a,
¢> ¢> Q
E c
O,
U_
d a
E 7th St C-)
Massachusetts
C CO ≥`
d 73 N
a CO t
cc U
E 10th St
Cherry Gate 0
Apartment Homes
E 9th St
Massachusetts Ave
Pennsylvania Ave
Carnation Ln
Stephen's Lawn Care 0
and Improvement
E 8th St
Extra Space Storage 0
Tacos & Bee Rodeway Inn
®Beaumont 1-10
From $77/night on
RodewayInn Beaumon...

Beaumont 0
Animal Hospital
E 3rd St
ht Solution Plumbing 0
DC Electric
E 1st St
a,
E
N
0 Tarn.

E 5th St
E 3rd St
Potrero Blvd
E 1st S
Pennsylvania Ave
Project
Vicinity
American Ave
E 6th St
Daf
•o
0 D
O
A
First Street Storage
E 1st St
Leon Multiservices 0
livescan fingerprinting... . _ P
�c
0 Sunnyslope Cemetery
Potrero Blvd
Ci
2/3/25

24-55 MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Noise

Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Ldn Consulting, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
Figure 2: Proposed Project Configuration
Lai
<
I—
D
Z
F —
(I)
LA
2 U
14 ICHIGAN AVE
14 3
w
<
v)
L
w
m
U
N
cn
2 1'-k1
'
2 11 i.
6TH ST
UPRR
1hr
k.
9 INTERSTATE I-10
�0 z
z
‘r(1)
3RD ST -7"<
z
5 6 D
m
FUTURE 2ND ST
1ST ST _
5 u
m
z
z
m<
D
z
5 ♦

INDEX MAP
NTS
3M 32lIHSM38
2/3/25

24-55 MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Noise

Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Background
Ldn Consulting, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
Sound is measured on a logarithmic scale consisting of sound pressure levels known as a decibel (dB). The sounds heard by humans typically do not consist of a single frequency but of a broadband of frequencies having different sound pressure levels. The method for evaluating all the frequencies of the sound is to apply an A -weighting to reflect how the human ear responds to the different sound levels at different frequencies.

The A -weighted sound level adequately describes the instantaneous noise whereas the equivalent sound level depicted as Leq represents a steady sound level containing the same total acoustical energy as the actual fluctuating sound level over a given time interval.

Sound from a localized source (a "point" source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source. The sound level attenuates or drops -off at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. A drop-off rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance was used for this piece of equipment. For example, a noise level of 75 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would be reduced to 69 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor and reduced to 63 dBA at 200 feet from the source.

City of Beaumont Thresholds of Significance
The Beaumont Municipal Code (MC) establishes the following provisions for noise relative to the proposed Project:

Section 9.02.110 — Special Provisions
F. Construction, Landscape. Maintenance or Repair

1. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in or permit the generation of noise related to landscape maintenance, construction including erection, excavation, demolition, alteration or repair of any structure or improvement, at such sound levels, as measured at the property line of the nearest adjacent occupied property, as to be in excess of the sound levels permitted under this Chapter, at other times than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The person engaged in such activity is hereby permitted to exceed sound levels otherwise set forth in this Chapter for the duration of the activity during the above described hours for purposes of construction. However, nothing contained herein shall permit any person to cause sound levels to at any time exceed 55 dB(A) for intervals of more than 15 minutes per hour as measured in the interior of the nearest occupied residence or school.
2/3/25

24-55 MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Noise

Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Ldn Consulting, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253

2. Whenever a construction site is within one -quarter of a mile of an occupied residence or residences, no construction activities shall be undertaken between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May. Exceptions to these standards shall be allowed only with the written consent of the building official.

Methodology and Assumptions
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the FTA and the FHWA. Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period. Construction noise modeling was conducted using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).

Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line -of -sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). Noise level estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable worst -case estimate of actual temporary construction noise.

The City of Beaumont does not establish quantitative construction noise standards; therefore, this analysis conservatively uses the FTA's threshold of 80 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for residential uses and 90 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.

Construction Noise Findings
The proposed storm drain line will start at the southeast corner of 1st Street and Berkshire Avenue, within the existing graded open channel. The remainder of the storm drain would be located within the street right-of-way, beginning along 1st Street. Construction of the storm drain line would require excavation, pipeline construction, and paving.

Construction activities are only expected to be in close proximity to residential uses for the portion of the line that ties into the existing graded open channel at the southeast corner of 1st Street and Berkshire Avenue. The land uses along the portions of the line along Pennsylvania Avenue and 6th Street are primarily retail and commercial.
2/3/25

24-55 MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Noise

Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Ldn Consulting, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
Noise levels along the line are linear and the equipment will be moving near the residences at an average distance of 50 feet while working within the open channel. Once within the street right-of-way, construction will be located a minimum 90 feet from the existing residences. The amount of equipment utilized would be limited due to alignment and work area constraints, therefore, it is expected that only one piece of equipment could be working in one area at any given time. Not all the equipment will operate continuously over an 8 -hour period, the equipment will be utilized on an as -needed basis.

As can be seen in Table 1 below, at a distance as close as 50 feet, the anticipated worst -case noise level would be below the FTA's 80 dBA Leq 8 -hour standard at the nearest residential property lines. Additionally, the equipment will be moving linearly along the length of the line, therefore, the noise levels are expected to be lower. Therefore, no construction noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

Table 1: Construction Noise Levels
Construction Equipment
Quantity
Source Level
@ 50 -Feet
(dBA)*
Duty Cycle
(Percent Utilized)
8 -Hour Noise
Level @
Property Line
(dBA)
Linear, Excavation and Export
Off -Highway Trucks
1 75
40%

71.0 Excavators
1 77
40%

73.0 Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 83
40%

79.0 Skid Steer Loaders
1 74
40%

70.0 Linear, Set Drainage Piping Network & Sub -Grade Construction including Material Import Skid Steer Loaders
1 74
40%

70.0 Excavators
1 77
40%

73.0 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 75
40%

71.0 Plate Compactors
1 74
40%

70.0 Off -Highway Trucks
1 75
40%

71.0 Linear, Asphalt Paving Placement
Off -Highway Trucks
1 75
40%

71.0 Rollers
1 77
40%

73.0 Pavers
1 79
40%

75.0 Paving Equipment
1 78
40%

74.0 `Source: DEFRA 2006 and Empirical Data
2/3/25

24-55 MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Noise

Eunice Bagwan
Chambers Group, Inc.
3151 Airway Ave Suite F208
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Conclusions
Ldn Consulting, Inc
23811 Washington Ave, C110-333
Murrieta CA 92562
phone 760-473-1253
Based upon the calculations of the noise levels when construction equipment is located near the closest noise sensitive land uses, the average noise levels would not exceed the 80 dBA 8 -hour standard and no impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required.

Project construction noise levels are considered exempt if activities do not occur within the hours specified in the City of Beaumont Municipal Code, Section 9.02.030 of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the months of June through September and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during the months of October through May unless approval is obtained from the City Building Official or City Engineer.

At the time of this analysis, no Project construction activity is planned outside of the specified hours. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required during construction of the proposed Project. Additionally, all equipment should be properly fitted with mufflers and all staging and maintenance should be conducted as far away from the existing residence as possible.

Sincerely,
DRAFT
Jeremy Louden, Principal
2/3/25

24-55 MDP Line 2, Stage 1 Noise

PALEONTOLOGICAL REVIEW
FOR
THE BEAUMONT MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN LINE 2 PROJECT

CITY OF BEAUMONT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

CITY OF BEAUMONT
Public Works Department
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Prepared by:

CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 104
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 541-2800
March 2025

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
This Page Intentionally Blank
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1.0 — INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 2

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION 2
SECTION 3.0 — REGULATORY SETTING 3

3.1 FEDERAL 3

3.1.1 Federal Antiquities Act 3

3.1.2 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act 3

3.1.3 Actions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3

3.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4

3.3 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4
SECTION 4.0 — GEOLOGIC SETTING 6

4.1 GEOLOGY 6

4.1.1 Soils 6
SECTION 5.0 - PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY 8

5.1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SENSITIVITY 8

5.2 PROFESSIONAL GUIDELINES 9

5.2.1 Society for Vertebrate Paleontology 9

5.3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH 10

5.3.1 Previously Recorded Paleontological Sites 10

5.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT 10

5.5 FIELD SURVEY 10
SECTION 6.0 - RECOMMENDATIONS 12
SECTION 7.0 - FIGURES AND PHOTOGRAPHS 14
SECTION 8.0 — REFERENCES 18
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Project Location Map 15
Figure 2: Regional Geology 16
Figure 3: Paleontological Sensitivity 17
Chambers Group, Inc. iv
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
SECTION 1.0 — INTRODUCTION
Chambers Group has been contracted by the City of Beaumont (City), California, to complete a paleontological review for the proposed Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Line 2 Project (Project). Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC) has partnered with the City to provide funding for the design and construction of the Proposed Project. In July 1983, RCFC developed a Master Drainage Plan 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. The Project includes the construction, operation and maintenance of an underground storm drains system, detention basin, storm drain appurtenances (i.e., catch basins, connector pipes) and street paving). The Project is proposed within and adjacent to existing residential development and previously utilized agricultural lands located in the City of Beaumont, and encompassing portions of 6th Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, and 1st Street.

The following review has been conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines, and County of Riverside policies. A paleontological localities search (records search) was conducted on January 17, 2025; while no localities were identified within one mile of the Project site, localities have been previously identified within alluvial unit mapped within the proposed Project site. Additionally, a pedestrian survey of the Project site was conducted on February 20, 2025; no evidence of paleontological resources was observed on the visible ground surface. This report includes recommended appropriate mitigation measures to ensure less than significant impacts to inadvertent findings of paleontological resources during construction.

Chambers Group, Inc. 1
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
SECTION 2.0 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Beaumont proposes the construction of 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 1st Street from Pennsylvania to an existing earthen channel just east of Berkshire Avenue (Proposed Project) in the City of Beaumont (City).The proposed pipe would begin at East 6th Street and Chestnut and terminate at East 1st Street and Berkshire Avenue where it would discharge to the existing earthen channel immediately east of Berkshire Avenue. A headwall would be constructed into the Berkshire Channel to accommodate the larger pipe diameter. The installation of drainage systems is required to safely convey storm runoff 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) and for future developments projects in the area.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located in the City of Beaumont, in western area of Riverside County, bounded by Calimesa to the north/northwest, Banning to the east, and San Jacinto to the south. The Proposed Project is sited along 6th Street, from Chestnut to Pennsylvania, proceeding along Pennsylvania, from 6th Street to 1st Street, then along 1st Street, from Pennsylvania to an existing earthen channel, approximately 100 feet east of Berkshire Avenue (roughly 800 -feet east of Pennsylvania). The Project is located on the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Beaumont, California 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle. The elevation at the Project site ranges from 2,610 to 2,560 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Maps of the Project Location and Project Vicinity are provided in Figure 1.

Land uses around the Proposed Project consist of developed and undeveloped parcels and open spaces.

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.

Chambers Group, Inc. 2
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
SECTION 3.0 — REGULATORY SETTING
The California Environmental Quality Act is the overriding environmental document that sets the requirement for protecting California's cultural and paleontological resources. While CEQA does not specifically establish rules that must be followed, it does require governing permitting agencies (lead agencies) to set their own guidelines for the protection of nonrenewable paleontological resources under their jurisdiction. In addition, several federal laws often are applicable when a nexus is made between a non-federal project or entity and a required federal permit (Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers), block grant or other monies, or oversite is involved.

3.1 FEDERAL

3.1.1 Federal Antiquities Act
The federal Antiquities Act of 1906 was enacted with the primary goal of protecting cultural resources in the United States. As such, it explicitly prohibits appropriation, excavation, injury, and destruction of "any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity" located on lands owned or controlled by the federal government without permission of the Secretary of the federal department with jurisdiction. It also establishes criminal penalties, including fines and/or imprisonment, for these acts.

Neither the Antiquities Act itself nor its implementing regulations (Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 3) specifically mentions paleontological resources. However, several federal agencies — including the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service — have interpreted objects of antiquity as including fossils. Consequently, the Antiquities Act also represents an early cornerstone for efforts to protect the nation's paleontological resources.

3.1.2 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (PRPA) (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 470aaa et seq.) was specifically intended to codify the generally accepted practice of limiting collection on public (federal) land of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils to qualified researchers who obtain a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency and agree to donate any materials recovered to recognized public institutions where they will remain accessible to the public and to other researchers.

3.1.3 Actions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Appendix C of Title 33 CFR Section 325 establishes procedures to be followed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to fulfill the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as well as other applicable historic preservation laws and Presidential directives related to historic resources potentially affected by ACOE actions (including issuance of permits pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act [CWA]). It specifies that when a project's authorization requires a federal action (for example, issuance of permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA), the project must comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA.

Chambers Group, Inc. 3
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California

3.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Under Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, as amended (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq.), procedures define the types of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. Section 15063 of the CCR provides a process by which a lead agency may review a project's potential impact to the environment, whether the impacts are significant, and provide recommendations, if necessary. In the Environmental Checklist, one of the questions to answer is, "Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?" (Appendix G, Section V, Part c). California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 states:

A) No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

B) As used in this section, "public lands" means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.

3.3 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
An interactive paleontological sensitivity mapping database is available online and maintained by the County of Riverside as a research tool to access the County's assignment of paleontological sensitivity levels for the various geologic formations within the county (County of Riverside 2025).

Riverside County's "SABER Policy" (Safeguard Artifacts Being Excavated in Riverside County), enacted in October 2011 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, may be applicable to the current project. The "SABER Policy" requires that any paleontological resources found or unearthed in the county of Riverside be curated at a facility within Riverside County, including the Western Science Center located in the city of Hemet (County of Riverside 2015, Policy OS 19.9).

The County of Riverside has adopted the following policies to ensure that paleontological resources are appropriately considered during the planning process:

OS 19.6 Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has high paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS -8, a paleontological resource impact mitigation program (PRIMP) shall be filed with the County Geologist prior to site grading.

The PRIMP shall specify the steps to be taken to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources.

OS 19.7 Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has low paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS -8, no direct mitigation is required unless a fossil is encountered during site development. Should a fossil be encountered, the County Geologist shall be notified and a paleontologist shall be retained by the project proponent. The paleontologist shall document the extent and potential Chambers Group, Inc. 4
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
significance of the paleontological resources on the site and establish appropriate mitigation measures for further site development.

OS 19.8 Whenever existing information indicates that a site proposed for development has undetermined paleontological sensitivity as shown on Figure OS -8, a report shall be filed with the County Geologist documenting the extent and potential significance of the paleontological resources on site and identifying mitigation measures for the fossil and for impacts to significant paleontological resources prior to approval of that department.

OS 19.9 Whenever paleontological resources are found, the County Geologist shall direct them to a facility within Riverside County for their curation, including the Western Science Center in the City of Hemet.

Chambers Group, Inc. 5
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
SECTION 4.0 - GEOLOGIC SETTING

4.1 GEOLOGY
The proposed Project is located in the City of Beaumont, within western Riverside County, as depicted on the USGS Beaumont 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2). The Beaumont quadrangle includes the southern margin of the Transverse Range, the northern margin of the San Jacinto Mountains, and the conjoining San Gorgonio Pass valley between the two mountainous segments. The San Gorgonio Pass links the San Gabriel Valley in the west with the Coachella Valley in the east. The San Gorgonio Pass is transected by the Banning Fault, a parallel branch of the San Andreas Fault.

Regionally, the Beaumont area is situated at the convergence of four geomorphic provinces: the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province, including Palm Springs and Palm Desert to the south; the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province, which includes the San Bernardino Mountains, and its descent to the San Gorgonio Pass, to the north, along with the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast; the Mojave Desert Geomorphic Province to the northeast; and the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province, coinciding with the general extent of the Coachella Valley, from the Whitewater River to the Salton Sea.

Thick sequences of Quaternary -age alluvial deposits are widespread in the San Gorgonio Pass.

Along the Transverse Ranges, sequences of Quaternary -age alluvial deposits are exposed along the southern margin of the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains, where drainages and attendant alluvial fans issue from Cherry Canyon, Millard Canyon, Banning Canyon, as well as from other smaller catchments. The moderately sloping Pleistocene and Early Holocene fan deposits have been uplifted on the upper plate of the San Gorgonio Pass Fault Zone, forming terrace landforms, such as the Banning Bench. Late Holocene -age alluvial fans and washes exhibit bar and swale features indicative of more recent activity. Historic -Period flood and debris flows occur locally, as indicated by unvarnished boulder fields, and boulder -lined levees located near the fan apices. The various branches of the San Andreas Fault have created a complex series of active strike slip and reverse faults that have disrupted the continuity of these alluvial deposits (Lancaster et al. 2012).

The proposed Project is underlain by late Pleistocene period alluvial deposits. The predominate formations are Quaternary -era San Gorgonio Pass alluvial fan deposits (Qf) composed of sand and gravel of plutonic and gneissic detritus derived from the dissected lower southern margins of San Bernardino mountains to the north. Immediately south, and intersecting with Qf sediments, are dissected, crudely bedded, light reddish sand and gravel alluvial fan deposits (Qoa), which are derived from metamorphic sedimentary (San Timoteo Formation) and plutonic intrusions (e.g., quartz monzonite) to the south (Dibblee and Minch 2003).

4.1.1 Soils
A tightly buffered Area of Interest (AOI) review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Web Soil Survey of the Project area resulted in the identification of three soil types (Table 1). These AOI surface sediments are indicative of sandy loam soils derived from exposed and underlying granitic bedrock, metasedimentary/metamorphic structures, and igneous intrusions. The greater soil development is represented by Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, at 73.9 percent of the Project area, and Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, at 29.9 percent of the Project area, representative of granitic - Chambers Group, Inc. 6
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
derived soils located within alluvial fans and terraces. Terrace escarpments, at 5.2 percent of the Project area, are representative of soils derived from unspecified lithic and sediment sources (USDA 2025).

Table 1: USDA Soil Types within the Project Area
Soil Type
Parent Material
% Project area
Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes, eroded
(RaB2)
Alluvium derived from granite

73.9 Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, severely eroded (RaC3)
Alluvium derived from granite

20.9 Terrace escarpments (TeG)
Alluvium derived from mixed
sources

5.2 Chambers Group, Inc. 7
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
SECTION 5.0 - PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY

5.1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SENSITIVITY
Low Potential
In lands for which previous field surveys and documentation demonstrate as having a low potential for containing significant paleontological resources subject to adverse impacts. The mapping of low potential was determined based on actual documentation and was not generalized to cover all areas of a particular rock unit on a geologic map.

It must be noted that surface geology, such as soils, are not always indicative of subsurface geology or the potential for paleontological resources. For instance, an area mapped as soil type "Qal" may actually be a thin surficial layer of non-fossiliferous sediments which covers fossil -rich Pleistocene sediments. Also, an area mapped as granite may be covered by a Pleistocene soil horizon that contains fossils. Thus, actual sensitivity must be ultimately determined by both a records search and a field inspection by a paleontologist.

Undetermined Potential
Areas underlain by sedimentary rocks for which literature or unpublished studies are not available have undetermined potential for containing significant paleontological resources. These areas need to be inspected by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist before a specific determination of high potential or low potential can be assigned.

High Potential
Sedimentary rock units with high potential for containing significant non-renewable paleontological resources include rock units in which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been found or determined likely to be present. These units include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations which contain significant non-renewable paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. High sensitivity includes not only the potential for yielding abundant vertebrate fossils, but also for production of a few significant fossils that may provide new and significant data. High sensitivity areas are mapped as either "High A" or "High B," according to the following criteria:

High Sensitivity A
High A is based on geologic formations or mapped rock units that are known to contain or have the correct age and depositional conditions to contain significant paleontological resources. These include rocks of Silurian or Devonian age and younger that have potential to contain remains of fossil fish, Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks that contain fossilized body elements, and trace fossils such as tracks, nests, and eggs.

Chambers Group, Inc. 8
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
High Sensitivity B
High B is a sensitivity equivalent to High A but is based on the occurrence of fossils at a specified depth below the surface. This category indicates fossils that are likely to be encountered at or below 4 feet of depth and may be impacted during construction activities.

5.2 PROFESSIONAL GUIDELINES

5.2.1 Society for Vertebrate Paleontology
The SVP has established standard guidelines (SVP 1995, 2010) that outline professional protocols and practices for conducting paleontological resource assessments and surveys, monitoring and mitigation, data and fossil recovery, sampling procedures, and specimen preparation, identification, analysis, and curation. Most practicing professional vertebrate paleontologists adhere closely to the SVP's assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most state regulatory agencies with paleontological resource -specific Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS) accept and use the professional standards set forth by the SVP.

As defined by the SVP (2010), significant nonrenewable paleontological resources are:

Fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years).

Based on the significance definitions of the SVP (2010), all identifiable vertebrate fossils are considered to have significant scientific value. This position is adhered to because vertebrate fossils are relatively uncommon, and only rarely will a fossil locality yield a statistically significant number of specimens of the same genus. Therefore, every vertebrate fossil found has the potential to provide significant new information on the taxon it represents, its paleoenvironment, and/or its distribution. Furthermore, all geologic units in which vertebrate fossils have previously been found are considered to have high sensitivity. Identifiable plant and invertebrate fossils are considered significant if found in association with vertebrate fossils or if defined as significant by project paleontologists, specialists, or local government agencies.

A geologic unit known to contain significant fossils is considered to be "sensitive" to adverse impacts if there is a high probability that earth -moving or ground -disturbing activities in that rock unit will either directly or indirectly disturb or destroy fossil remains. Paleontological sites indicate that the containing sedimentary rock unit or formation is fossiliferous. The limits of the entire rock formation, both areal and stratigraphic, therefore define the scope of the paleontological potential in each case (SVP 1995).

Fossils are contained within surficial sediments or bedrock and are therefore not observable or detectable unless exposed by erosion or human activity. In summary, paleontologists cannot know either the quality or quantity of fossils prior to natural erosion or human -caused exposure. As a result, even in the absence Chambers Group, Inc. 9
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
of surface fossils, it is necessary to assess the sensitivity of rock units based on their known potential to produce significant fossils elsewhere within the same geologic unit (both within and outside of the Project site), a similar geologic unit, or based on whether the unit in question was deposited in a type of environment that is known to be favorable for fossil preservation. Monitoring by experienced paleontologists greatly increases the probability that fossils will be discovered during ground -disturbing activities and that, if these remains are significant, successful mitigation and salvage efforts may be undertaken in order to prevent adverse impacts to these resources.

5.3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH

5.3.1 Previously Recorded Paleontological Sites
A paleontological records search was conducted by the Western Science Center (WSC) on January 17, 2025. The records search noted that Project site is underlain by Holocene- and Pleistocene -period alluvial fan deposits of sand and gravel. The WSC noted that the Pleistocene alluvial units, in particular, are considered to be highly sensitive for paleontological resources; however, the WSC stated that it does not have localities within the Project site, or within the one -mile surrounding study area. That said, the WSC indicated that a number of localities have been recorded in similarly mapped units across southern California (WSC 2025).

5.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT
The paleontological sensitivity criteria are based on the County of Riverside's interactive online database (County of Riverside 2025). Figure 3 shows the Project area overlain on the USGS Beaumont 7.5 -minute topographic map and delineates the degrees of paleontological sensitivity assigned by the County of Riverside to the geologic formations within the vicinity (County of Riverside 2025). The bulk of the Project area is located within a "Undetermined" designation. Near the southwest corner of the Project, however, is an expansive area mapped as "High A." Detailed interaction with the County of Riverside's interactive online database suggests that this delineation extends to within 500 feet of the area of direct effects.

As documented by WSC (2025), the paleontological records search did not identify any known paleontological resources within one mile of the Project site; however, it does have localities in similarly mapped units. Riverside County has designated much of the area surrounding the Project site as of unknown sensitivity for paleontological resources, under which assessment the County recommends that a more in-depth study, including a pedestrian survey, be conducted to determine whether the area can be assigned a specific determination of high potential or low potential for paleontological resources.

Additionally, areas adjacent to the Project site have been mapped as High A potential, and underlying geological mapping coinciding with this potential extends to within 500 feet of the Project site (Figures 2 and 3).

5.5 FIELD SURVEY
Chambers Group cultural resources specialists Efrain Arroyo, MA, RPA (Secretary of the Interior [SOI]- qualified archaeologist), and cross -trained cultural -paleontological specialist Kellie Kandybowicz, BA, conducted a pedestrian field survey of the entire Project site, including the proposed pipeline alignment and laydown and storage yards, on February 20, 2025. The primary goal of the surveys was to gather and Chambers Group, Inc. 10
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
analyze information needed to determine if the Project would impact cultural and paleontological resources. The Project site was surveyed along road margins up to residential and commercial property lines, as well as in 10- to 15 -meter survey intervals within undeveloped parcels (Figure 1).

Survey of the Project site did not result in the identification of any paleontological materials at the surface level of observation.

Chambers Group, Inc. 11
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
SECTION 6.0 — RECOMMENDATIONS
As noted in the paleontological records search (WSC 2025), sediments at and surrounding the Project area consist of Holocene and Pleistocene alluvial deposits where fossil localities have been documented outside the Project site. The WSC noted that "[e]xcavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact the paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units. As such, the WSC recommends "that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the study area" (WSC 2025). The following mitigation measures are recommended to remain in conformance with the County of Riverside adopted policies to ensure that paleontological resources are appropriately considered during the planning process, OS 19.6 through OS 19.9.

Chambers Group recommends that a qualified paleontologist be retained and on -call for the duration of the ground -disturbing construction activity. Further, Chambers Group recommends the adoption of mitigation measure MM PAL -1 or other applicable mitigation that may include full-time monitoring for all ground disturbing in areas designated as "undefined" as indicated in Figure 3, or any areas identified as potentially significant by a qualified paleontologist.

MM PAL -1 The City shall be required to obtain the services of a Qualified Paleontologist to remain on -call for the duration of the ground -disturbing construction activity. Upon approval or request by the City, a paleontological mitigation plan (PMP) outlining procedures for paleontological monitoring and inadvertent discovery protocols shall be prepared for the Project and submitted to the City for review and approval. The development and implementation of the PMP shall include, but not be limited to, additional research and further assessment of paleontological sensitivity in the Project site, consultations with the City's engineering geologist, as well as a requirement that the curation of all specimens recovered under any scenario shall be through an appropriate repository agreed upon by the City. The PMP shall also include developing a multilevel ranking system, or Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC), as a tool to demonstrate the potential yield of fossils within a given stratigraphic unit.

The PMP shall outline the monitoring and salvage protocols to address inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources encountered during Project -related ground -disturbing activities.

As well as the appropriate recording, collection, processing, curation, and reporting protocols to appropriately address any monitoring conducted or resources discovered.

A paleontological mitigation plan may include the following requirements:

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

1. If paleontological resources are discovered during earth disturbance activities, the discovery shall be cordoned off with a 50 -foot radius buffer to protect the discovery from further potential damage, and a Riverside County -qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to assess the discovery. If the discovery is determined to be significant by the paleontologist, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall be initiated, which will include appropriate monitoring of earth disturbance activities.

2. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface or, if present, are determined by qualified paleontological personnel upon exposure and examination to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.

Chambers Group, Inc. 12
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California

3. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner.

4. Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities is typically from the generated spoils and does not delay the trenching or drilling activities. Fossils will be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, collector, and date collected. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the discovery site, and the discovery site will be photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are removed to a safe place.

5. Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several five -gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material. For vertebrate fossils, the test is usually the observed presence of small pieces of bones within the sediments. If present, as many as 20 to 40 five -gallon buckets of sediment can be collected and returned to a separate facility to wet -screen the sediment. In the laboratory, individual fossils are cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks are repaired, and the specimen, if needed, is stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).

6. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than accumulation of invertebrate fossils.

7. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western Science Center, 2345 Searl Parkway, Hemet, California 92543). The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.

8. Preparation of a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to the appropriate lead agency (City), will signify satisfactory completion of the Project program to mitigate impacts to any paleontological resources.

Chambers Group, Inc. 13
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
SECTION 7.0 - FIGURES AND PHOTOGRAPHS
Chambers Group, Inc. 14
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
Figure 2: Regional Geology
Figure 2
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Regional Geology
APE
Regional Geology
Qoa
Qa
Qf
Tst
S rouce: Dibbles Geological Foundation
0 450 900 1,800
Fee
,40/4/,1

CHAMBERS
:40 GROUP
Chambers Group, Inc.
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
Figure 3: Paleontological Sensitivity
Figure 3
Beaumont MDP Line 2
Paleontological Sensitivity
APE
Paleontological Sensitivity
Ha
L
U
o
450
900
1,800
Feet
Cl iA±Vi 3IR5
Chambers Group, Inc. 17
21501

Paleontological Review for City of Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project Riverside County, California
SECTION 8.0 — REFERENCES
County of Riverside
2015 Draft program EIR No. 521. State Clearinghouse No. 2009041065, Part 1 of 2. https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_plan_2015/DEI R%20521/DEIR %20No.%20521.pdf.
2025 Map My County; Paleontological Sensitivity Map, accessed February 2025, at:
https://gisl.countyofriverside.us/HtmI5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public .

Dibblee, Thomas W., and John A. Minch
2003 Geologic Map of the Beaumont Quadrangle. Riverside County, California. Dibblee Geology Center Map #DF-114.

Lancaster, Jeremy T., Cheryl A. Hayhurst, and Trinda L. Bedrossian 2012 Preliminary Geologic Map of Quaternary Surficial Deposits in Southern California Palm Springs 30' X 60' Quadrangle. CGS Special Report 217, Plate 24.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
1995 Conditions of Receivership for Paleontological Salvage Collections. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin 166:31-32.
2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Accessed at: https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2025 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. Soil Resource Report for Western Riverside Area, California, Version 14, March 2025.

Western Science Center (WSC)
2025 Results of a Records Search Conducted for the Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2 Project in the City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California.

Chambers Group, Inc. 18
21501

Print Form
Notice of Determination
Appendix D
To:

Q Office of Planning and Research
U.S. Mail:

P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Q County Clerk
County of: Riverside
Address: 4080 Lemon Street
Street Address:
1400 Tenth St., Rm 113
Sacramento, CA 95814
Riverside, CA 92501
From:

Public Agency: City of Beaumont
Address: 550 East Sixth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223
Contact: Dustin Christensen
Phone: (951) 769-8522
Lead Agency (if different from above):

Address:

Contact:

Phone:

SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.

State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to State Clearinghouse): 2026060388 Project Title: Beaumont Master Drainage Plan Line 2, Stage 1 Project Applicant: City of Beaumont
Project Location (include county): Beaumont; Riverside County, E 6th St & E 1st St along Pennsylvania Project Description:

Construction of approximately 5,000 linear feet of 84 -inch to 102 -inch RCP along 6th St, Pennsylvania Ave, and E 1st St in the City to handle anticipated future flows. The outlets at Berkshire Avenue will be lowered by 2 feet, and the exit pipe size will increase, requiring reconstruction of the headwalls and grading around the outlet accordingly.

This is to advise that the City of Beaumont has approved the above (El Lead Agency or ❑ Responsible Agency)
described project on 08/04/26
(date)
described project.
and has made the following determinations regarding the above

1. The project [❑ will ❑■ will not] have a significant effect on the environment.

2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑■ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. Mitigation measures [❑■ were ❑ were not] made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [❑■ was ❑ was not] adopted for this project.

5. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑ was ❑■ was not] adopted for this project.

6. Findings [❑■ were ❑ were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval, or the negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at:
r https://www.beaumontca.gov/1125/Planning-Projects
Signature (Public Agency): Title:

Date: Date Received for filing at OPR:

Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code.

Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code.

Revised 2011

BEAUMONT
-C A L I F O R N A -
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Christopher Boatman, City Manager
BY: Steven D. Jones, Community Development Director
DATE: August 4, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Beaumont 2026 Sustainability Plan Public Hearing Continuance
Description: Request to continue a duly noticed public hearing to consider a resolution of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California adopting the 2026 Beaumont Sustainability Plan as an update to the 2015 Climate Action Plan and an Addendum to Elevate Beaumont 20240 General Plan Program EIR.

Motion:

If the City Council determines that staff's recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to continue the public hearing item regarding the Beaumont 2026 Sustainability Plan to the 2015 Climate Action Plan from tonight's agenda to a public hearing item of the regularly scheduled meeting of September 1, 2026.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council continue the public hearing item to allow additional time for coordination, review, and refinement of the associated ordinance amendments. Further analysis is needed to ensure the proposed updates align with the 2015 Climate Action Plan, recent case law, community design objectives, and departmental recommendations. Continuing the item will ensure that all required findings and documentation are fully supported before returning the Sustainability Plan and related code amendments to the City Council for consideration.

Discussion:

The Beaumont 2026 Sustainability Plan was scheduled for public hearing and Council consideration as part of the City's ongoing efforts to update, align, and integrate long-range sustainability and climate -related planning documents. This includes

evaluating consistency with the adopted 2015 Climate Action Plan and determining potential updates or policy refinements needed to reflect current State requirements, departmental practices, and community priorities.

A public hearing was duly noticed for the City Council's consideration of an ordinance proposing amendments to the sign regulations within Title 17 of the Beaumont Municipal Code. Following publication of the notice, staff identified the need for additional review and coordination to ensure that the proposed text amendments are fully aligned with recent case law, community design objectives, and internal departmental recommendations. Additional time is needed to further refine the ordinance language, complete interdepartmental vetting, and confirm that all required analyses and findings are adequately supported prior to City Council consideration.

Fiscal Impact:

No fiscal impact is associated with continuing the item since the project was funded in 2023 and a balance still remains to cover the cost associated with processing.

Alternatives:

N/A

BEAUMONT
-C A L I F O R N A -
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert L. Vestal, Public Works Director I City Engineer BY: Vincent Lopez, Project Manager
DATE: August 4, 2026
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beaumont Transit Yard Project — Capital Improvement Project No. T25-01 in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Description: Request to continue the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Beaumont Transit Yard located on the southwest corner of 4th Street and Veile Avenue based on a completed Initial Study in compliance with CEQA and NEPA.

Motion:

If the City Council determines that staff's recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to continue the scheduled public hearing to August 18, 2026.

Recommendation:

Continue the scheduled public hearing to a date certain of August 18, 2026 to allow for staff time to compile information being requested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Discussion:

The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day public review period from June 15, 2026, through July 14, 2026, and was advertised in the Press Enterprise on June 14, 2026, and June 20, 2026. On July 14, 2026, the Public Works Department received a technical data request from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A response with the requested information was transmitted to SCAQMD. However, SCAQMD requested additional air quality information.

The community was properly notified on July 22, 2026, for a public hearing for the City Council's consideration and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Beaumont Transit Yard located on the southwest corner of 4th Street and Veile Avenue. After publication of the notice, staff identified the need to conclude SCAQMD's data request.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost associated with preparing this report was $350.

There are no anticipated fiscal impacts to the General Fund resulting from the recommended continuance or the proposed measures.

Click or tap here to enter text.

Attachments:

A. Proof of Publication — Public Hearing Notice

BEAUMONT
-C A L I F O R N A -
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kirk Pelser, Economic Development Director
BY: Joseph Cale, Management Analyst
DATE: August 4, 2026
SUBJECT: Award of Business Attraction and Expansion Program Grant — Application ED20265-0017 (Tuscano's Pizza & Pasta)
Description: Consideration of a $50,000 forgivable loan under the Downtown Business Attraction and Expansion Program for Application ED2025-0017 to support a qualifying downtown business investment.

Motion:

If the City Council determines that staff's recommendation is appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to approve the award of a forgivable loan under the Downtown Business Attraction and Expansion Program for Application ED2025-0017 in the amount of $50,000 and find that the forgivable loan serves a valid public purpose by promoting economic development, encouraging private investment, supporting business attraction and expansion, creating and retaining employment opportunities, and activating commercial spaces.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the award of a forgivable loan under the Downtown Business Attraction and Expansion Program for Application ED2025- 0017 in the amount of $50,000 to support the expansion of an existing sit-down restaurant.

Discussion:

The Downtown Business Attraction and Expansion Program provides loans to eligible sales tax -generating businesses that create jobs, increase foot traffic, and activate the downtown area with caveats for forgiveness. Application ED2025-0017 proposes a sit- down restaurant expansion within the Downtown Program Area and satisfies all

eligibility requirements under the adopted Program Guidelines. The funds will be utilized for working capital.

This restaurant expansion includes plans to develop a portion of the adjacent parking lot to accommodate the expansion of the existing restaurant. Under the Beaumont Municipal Code, additions to existing restaurants that increase the gross floor area by no more than 10 percent or 5,000 square feet — whichever is less — are exempt from Planning Division processing. The proposed expansion would continue to meet required parking standards, as the total new building area would necessitate approximately six (6) off-street parking spaces, and adequate parking is available within the adjacent lot.

The application package was accepted as complete and routed through the required inter -departmental review process. One designated staff member completed the formal scoring in accordance with the adopted criteria, and all other required departments reviewed the scoring and formally concurred on the program scoring sheet. The final score meets the program threshold for funding, and the project is consistent with the City's adopted downtown economic development objectives. The program is structured to protect public investment through a formal agreement and performance -based compliance requirements.

The Downtown Business Attraction and Expansion Program was adopted by City Council in December of 2022 following significant input regarding program design by the Council, the Economic Development Committee and downtown business stakeholders.

Only one additional application has been approved by Council thus far.

As adopted, the Program puts the City's Finance Director in the role of Program Administrator. It is important to note that, while the adopted Program guidelines and policies are meant to be reasonable and thorough from an industry best practices perspective, municipalities are not typically in the financial loan/grant industry and, as such, City staff, including the Finance Director as Program Administrator, are not able to apply the same level of underwriting scrutiny to a loan or grant that the commercial lending industry would. Instead, the City Council has created and offered a loan/grant program meant to be used as an incentive to assist the downtown area in growing its commercial diversity. These types of programs carry an inherent level of risk, particularly with respect to restaurant uses. This program is not unlike what many California cities used to successfully fund with redevelopment tax increment monies.

Having noted these risks, Economic Development staff does recommend that the Council approve this application, which meets the review standards within our adopted Program and represents a relatively modest amount of $50,000 for a quality restaurant use at the key location of Beaumont Avenue and 6th Street.

The adopted Program is structured so that that an approved $50,000 loan is forgivable as follows:

Amount of Loan Forgiveness Qualification/Reporting Period Up to $25,000
$50,000
Three years of consecutive operations
Five years of consecutive operations
If the borrower fails to meet the required milestones, the loan will begin accruing interest. The interest rate will be equal to the average rate earned by the City's investment in the California Local Investment Funds (LAIF). Any interest that accrues and remains unpaid will be added to the loan principal on a monthly basis and will thereafter accrue interest as part of the principal balance. All outstanding principal and accrued interest will be due and payable in accordance with the repayment terms established in the Note.

Public Benefit:

The proposed forgivable loan is consistent with the City's Business Attraction and Expansion Forgivable Loan Program and serves a valid public purpose by promoting economic development within the City of Beaumont. The financial assistance is intended to encourage private investment that may not otherwise occur, support business attraction and expansion, create and retain employment opportunities, activate commercial spaces, increase foot traffic, strengthen the local economy, and expand the City's sales tax base. Staff has determined that the anticipated public benefits generated by the proposed project are expected to exceed the value of the financial assistance provided. Accordingly, approval of the proposed agreement is consistent with the public purpose of the Program and represents an appropriate investment in the City's Tong -term economic vitality.

Fiscal Impact:

Funding for this project is included in the current budget and available under GL Account 100-1235-7096-0000, which currently has $220,000 available.

The cost to prepare this staff report is estimated at $250.

Alternatives:

Decline to approve and provide Staff with direction.

Attachments:

A. Inter -Departmental Scoring Sheet
B. Program Agreement

Attracti on a nd E xp ansi on Loan Pr ogram Rati ng She et: T uscano's Pizza & Pasta

01.6 10 I7OL abed

CRITERIA

POINTS POSSIBLE

POINTS RECEIVED

FULFILL A NEED WITHIN THE CO MMUNITY
10 10

GENERATE INCREASED SALES TAX REVENUE
5 5

CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RECRUITING

NEW BUSINESSES TO FILL COMMERCIAL

VACANCIES
10 0

CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESS

EXPANSION FOR EXISTING BEAUMONT
BUSINESSES; OR
10 10

ENCOURAGE ADDITIONAL FOOT TRAFFIC

AND SOCIAL ACTIVITY WITHIN THE

PROPOSED BUSINESS LOCATION
10 10

DIVERSIFY THE CITY'S SALES TAX BASE
10 10

THE RISK DETERMINATION ANALYSIS
5 5
TOTAL:
60 50
Reviewer Name: 0-0- s,? OLL
Reviewer Signature: Li— ("lam
Date: G l)'ifs- 0) -
By signing belo w, I certify that I have reviewed the Attractio n and Expansion Loan Program rating sheet and concur with the prov ided rating:

City M anager:

Date:

Community Development Director;
Economic Development M anager,
Finance Director:
•
Date: 0A-9726
ate:

Date: Co 167s /24,

CITY OF BEAUMONT

DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ATTRACTION AND EXPANSION PROGRAM

FORGIVABLE LOAN AGREEMENT
This DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ATTRACTION AND EXPANSION PROGRAM FORGIVABLE LOAN AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into upon signature ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Beaumont ("City"), a municipal corporation, and 4 Star Solar Inc., a California Corporation located at 762 Beaumont Avenue, Beaumont, CA 92223 (`Borrower"). City and Borrower are at times individually referred to as "Party" and collectively as "Parties" herein.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Borrower owns and operates 4 Star Solar Inc. located in the City ("the Business"); and WHEREAS, Borrower requested a forgivable loan from the City through the DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ATTRACTION AND EXPANSION PROGRAM ("Program") by submitting

DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ATTRACTION AND EXPANSION PROGRAM APPLICATION ("Application"), which Program and Application are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, Borrower represents that Borrower's Business and participation in the Program, complies with all applicable federal laws, regulations and executive orders and Borrower shall comply with all such including payment of state, local and federal taxes at all times during the term of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, City intends to provide, and Borrower intends to receive, a loan subject to all terms and conditions set forth in the Program and this Agreement.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the forgoing Recitals which are hereby incorporated herein by this reference the Parties agree as follows:

1. LOAN

1.1. Subject to the conditions set forth herein, City agrees to extend a forgivable loan to Borrower in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($50,000) ("Loan"). Funds to be distributed pursuant to the Loan shall be referred to herein as "Loan Funds."

1.2. Loan Funds shall be disbursed by City to Borrower in accordance with the Program.

2. TERMS OF THE LOAN

2.1. Interest Rate. The interest rate shall be equal to the average rate earned by the City's investment in the California Local Investment Fund (LAIF) (LAIF's Annual Returns: ..

2.2. Repayment of Loan. Unless the Loan is subject to forbearance or otherwise forgiven in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 2.5 hereof, Borrower shall repay all un-forgiven principal of the Loan in four equal quarter -annual installments.

2.3. Prepayment. Borrower shall have the right to prepay all or any portion of the Loan outstanding at any time without penalty.

2.4. Security. Borrower shall execute a Promissory Note in favor of the City to evidence its obligations with respect to the Loan. The Promissory Note shall be in substantially the form as set forth in Exhibit C hereto. The Loan shall be secured by a personal Guaranty of the Note by the principals of the Business in substantially the form as set forth in Exhibit D attached hereto.

2.5. Loan Forgiveness. City agrees to forbear collection of the Loan so long as the Borrower is in compliance with this Agreement and the Program Guidelines. City and Borrower agree that the Loan shall be forgiven if Borrower complies with Program requirements and continuously operates the Business for:
• Three (3) years from the date of this Agreement for loans up to $25,000 • Five (5) years from the date of this Agreement for loans of $50,000

3. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FUNDS

3.1. The Loan Funds are subject to the following expenditure conditions ("Approved Uses"):

3.1.1. The Loan Funds shall be expended solely for the purposes provided in this Agreement, including the Program, and must be expended during the period identified in the Program.

3.1.2. Loan Funds may be used for working capital interior or exterior leasehold improvements or business equipment, furniture, and fixtures. (each hereinafter an "Eligible Expense"); Borrower is responsible to determine whether any expenditures are subject to prevailing wages under Labor Code Section 1720 and shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless from any claims, expenses or judgements resulting from actual or alleged violations of such laws.

3.1.3. The Loan Funds shall not be used for any activity that would violate City, state or federal statutory or decisional law; and

3.2. Borrower further agrees that the Loan Funds will be spent solely for the Approved Uses and that the Loan Funds must be used by Borrower within 183 days of the date of this Agreement otherwise, the Loan Funds shall be returned to City, as provided in Section 3.4 below.

3.3. If the City determines Loan Funds have been used for an ineligible expense, as determined in the sole discretion of the City, the Borrower shall repay such amount within ten (10) days of the City notifying the Borrower that the expenses are ineligible.

3.4. The City may inspect Borrower's business and such financial records as may be necessary, in City's judgment, to ensure eligibility prior to release of any funds pursuant to this Agreement.

3.5. Upon 72 hours' notice, Borrower will allow the City to inspect Borrower's business and such financial and other records as may be necessary, in City's judgment, to verify that Loan Funds are being used in accordance with this Agreement and the Program requirements.

4. REPORTING AND ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS

4.1. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Borrower shalt maintain true, proper, and complete books, records, and accounts (collectively, "Books and Records") in which shall be entered .fully and accurately all transactions taken with respect to the expenditure of the Loan Funds.

Borrower shall make available to City copies of such Books and Records within ten (10) calendar days of the City's request.

4.2. Borrower will be responsible for providing documentation, including receipts, to the City that accounts for how the entirety of the Loan Funds received were used to fund Eligible Expenses according to the timelines specified in the Program. Borrower shall provide any additional information or documentation related to the expenditures requested by the City within ten (10) calendar days of City's request.

4.3. City reserves the right to designate its own employee representative(s) or its contracted representative(s) with a Certified Public Accounting firm who shall have the right to audit Borrower's accounting procedures and internal controls of Borrower's financial systems as they relate to the Application and use of Loan Funds and to examine any cost, revenue, payment, claim, other records or supporting documentation resulting from any items set forth in this Agreement. Any such audit(s) shall be undertaken by City or its representative(s) at mutually agreed upon reasonable times and in conformance with generally accepted auditing standards. Borrower agrees to fully cooperate with any such audit(s).

4.4. Borrower agrees to exercise prudent financial management processes including proper oversight of all assets, budget preparation, and timely reporting including budget -to -actual -comparisons.

4.5. In the event Borrower does not make the above -referenced records available within the City of Beaumont, California, Borrower shall pay all necessary and reasonable expenses incurred by City in conducting any audit at the location where said records and books of account are maintained.

5. USE OF LOAN FUNDS
The Loan Funds shall be used solely by Borrower for the Approved Uses and for no other use.

6. INDEMNIFICATION

6.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Borrower shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever, which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to misrepresentations by Borrower, the expenditure of Loan Funds, the Application, or the Agreement, including the negligent and/or willful acts, errors and/or omissions of the Borrower, its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, and anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of them. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

6.2. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. Any policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by Borrower.

7. BORROWER INDEPENDENCE
In the performance of this Agreement, Borrower, and the agents and employees of Borrower, shall act in an independent capacity and are not officers, employees or agents of the City. The manner and means of performing the Approved Uses are under the control of Borrower, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for Borrower or any of Borrower's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct Borrower as to the details of the performance or to exercise a measure of control over Borrower shall mean only that Borrower shall follow the desires of City with respect to the restrictions of the Approved Uses.

8. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS
Borrower shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate or transfer this Agreement or any of the obligations to be performed under this Agreement, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without prior written consent of City. Any attempt to do so without written consent of City shall be null and void.

9. NOTICES

9.1. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Agreement shall be given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided

9.2. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Borrower to City shall be addressed to the City at:

Attn: City Manager
City of Beaumont
550 w. Sixth Street
Beaumont, CA 92223

9.3. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Borrower shall be addressed to Borrower at;
Attn: k r0 ate,
®61s--- Fzoi•ri
ize-1,p),VittS, net- 4Z37y

10. TERMINATION

10.1. Termination by City. The City may terminate this Agreement if it determines that the Borrower has made any misrepresentations that relate in any way to the Application or expenditure of Loan Funds by providing Borrower with three (3) calendar days' notice of termination, in writing. In the event of termination, Borrower shall return any unexpended Loan Funds within ten (10) business days. Termination of this Agreement shall not relieve Borrower of any liability to expend Loan

Funds on only Approved Uses, to provide receipts or documentation thereof to City, or otherwise to comply with the substantive terms of this Agreement.

10.2. Specific Performance. Borrower agrees that the City has the legal right, and all necessary conditions have been satisfied, to specifically enforce Borrower's obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

11. STANDARD PROVISIONS

11.1. Recitals. City and Borrower acknowledge that the above Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement.

11.2. Compliance With all Laws. Borrower shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities, including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted and comply with all state and county guidance for re -opening.

11.3. Waiver. A waiver by either Party of any breach, term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.

11.4. Integrated Contract. This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein.

11.5. Conflicts or Inconsistencies. In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Application, or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.

11.6. Interpretation. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.

11.7. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Borrower and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

11.8. Severability. Harty term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

11.9. Controlling Law And Venue. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of California.

11.10. Equal Opportunity Employment. Borrower represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any contractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age or any other impermissible basis under law.

11.11. No Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any dispute or legal action arising under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall not be entitled to attorney's fees.

11.12. Taxes. The City and Borrower expressly agree that the Borrower shall be responsible for all taxes that are associated in any way with the receipt and expenditure of the Loan Funds. City makes no representations whatsoever as to the tax consequences, if any, of Borrower's acceptance of Loan Funds.

11.13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the dates written below.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY ATTORNEY
Date:

CITY OF BEAUMONT, a California general law city
Date:

ATTEST:

By:

City Clerk
BORROWER:

Name
Officer Title

Exhibit A: Borrower's Application

Tuscano's Pizza & Pasta Expansion
Purpose:

Tuscano's Pizza & Pasta is a locally owned and operated family restaurant that has proudly served the Beaumont community for many years. We are seeking assistance through the Business Attraction/Expansion Program to support the expansion of our existing restaurant through the construction of a covered patio dining area.

The expansion will allow Tuscano's to increase seating capacity, accommodate larger groups, and provide a comfortable year-round gathering space for local residents, families, youth sports teams, and community organizations. The additional space will enable us to host events and team gatherings that are currently limited by our seating capacity, helping keep residents and visitors dining and spending within Beaumont rather than seeking accommodations in neighboring cities.

This project will directly support the City's objectives by creating additional employment opportunities, increasing taxable sales, and generating greater foot traffic in the downtown area. As customer capacity increases, we anticipate the need to hire additional kitchen, service, and support staff, creating new local jobs and increasing economic activity within the community.

The covered patio will also enhance the overall dining experience and attractiveness of downtown Beaumont by providing a welcoming destination where residents can gather, watch sporting events, celebrate special occasions, and support a locally owned business.

Increased visitation to Tuscano's will benefit neighboring businesses and contribute to the continued growth and vitality of the downtown business district.

As a long-standing local business, Tuscano's remains committed to investing in Beaumont, employing local residents, supporting youth sports and community organizations, and providing a family -friendly atmosphere for residents and visitors. We believe this expansion represents a meaningful investment in the City's economic future and aligns with the goals of increasing jobs, sales tax revenue, business investment, and downtown activity.

Qualifications:

B. Sit-down Fine Dining Restaurant
Business Details:

Tuscano's Pizza & Pasta is a family -owned full -service Italian restaurant and sports bar located in downtown Beaumont. Our current operations include dine -in service,