PALEONTOLOGICAL IDEN TIFICATION REPORT AND PALEONTOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT · 2019-07-03 · PALEONTOLOGICAL IDEN TIFICATION REPORT AND PALEONTOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT STATE ROUTE

P A L E O N T O L O G I C A L I D E N T I F I C A T I O N R E P O R T A N D P A L E O N T O L O G I C A L E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T

STATE ROUTE 74 LOWER ORTEGA HIGHWAY WIDENING PROJECT

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO AND UNINCORPORATED ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

DISTRICT 12

E.A. 086920 12-ORA-74-PM 1.0-2.1

Project ID# 1200000051

Submitted to:

Charles Baker, Branch Chief Environmental Analysis

California Department of Transportation, District 12 1750 East 4th Street, Suite 100 Santa Ana, California 92705

April 2019

P A L E O N T O L O G I C A L I D E N T I F I C A T I O N R E P O R T A N D S T A T E R O U T E 7 4 L O W E R O R T E G A H I G H W A Y W I D E N I N G P R O J E C T

P A L E O N T O L O G I C A L E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T S A N J U A N C A P I S T R A N O A N D U N I N C O R P O R A T E D O R A N G E C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A

A P R I L 2 0 1 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The State Route 74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project (project) is located in the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) and unincorporated Orange County (County) on State Route 74 (SR-74). The total length of the project is 1.1 miles (mi). The project proposes to widen the existing two-lane highway to four lanes with shoulders and median on SR-74 from Calle Entradero (Post Mile [PM] 1.0) to the City and County line (City/County line). In addition, restriping and pavement restoration improvements will begin at the City/County line to Reata Road (PM 2.1). Class II bicycle facilities are planned and would be provided on each side of the roadway as part of the 5-foot (ft) wide paved shoulders throughout the project limits. The existing sidewalk on the south side of SR-74 would be maintained in its existing location, with the exception of a portion of sidewalk at the intersection of Via Cordova, where the sidewalk would be shifted to the south and reconstructed to provide for the right-turn pocket at this intersection. A new sidewalk would be constructed to the east beyond Avenida Siega and would connect to the planned County sidewalk system to provide continuity and would be consistent with City and County goals. The project also involves drainage improvements, retaining walls, noise barriers, and modifications to signals, lighting, and utilities.

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared for the proposed project and was certified in November 2009. The City and the Hunt Club filed a joint lawsuit, citing inadequate analyses in the EIR. Negotiations between the parties resulted in a Settlement Agreement. Caltrans prepared a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Re-Validation to the certified EIR to incorporate certain project features and improvements that were negotiated in the Settlement Agreement. As a result of the final determination of the project’s effect on the environment and the Settlement Agreement, only the Preferred Alternative (Build Alternative 2), the project design modification to Build Alternative 2 included in the CEQA Re-Validation, and the No Build Alternative will be analyzed and discussed in the environmental documents under both NEPA and CEQA.

Following the Caltrans guidelines and recommendations from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), this report identifies and evaluates any potential paleontological resources that may be encountered during construction of Build Alternative 2 and makes recommendations on how to mitigate impacts to those resources. The findings in this study are based on the anticipated excavation and construction methods for Build Alternative 2, the definitions of paleontological significance and sensitivity, reviews of geological and paleontological literature, the results of fossil locality searches through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the San Diego Natural History Museum, and the results of a field survey of accessible portions of the project area.

Geologic mapping shows that the project area contains Young Axial Channel Deposits; Old Axial Channel Deposits; the Capistrano Formation, siltstone facies; and the Monterey Formation. Artificial Fill is also likely present as the project area is currently developed with existing SR-74 and adjacent streets. Artificial Fill has no paleontological sensitivity. The Young Axial Channel Deposits are assigned low paleontological sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 10 ft and high sensitivity below that mark. The Old Axial Channel Deposits, Capistrano Formation, and the Monterey Formation are considered to have high paleontological sensitivity.

i



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

Based on the results of this study and consideration of the development methods of Build Alternative 2, no special paleontological situations that would require project redesign to avoid critical fossil localities or deposits are anticipated for this project. However, the majority of the project area contains geologic units that have high paleontological sensitivity (e.g., the Young Axial Channel Deposits below a depth of 10 ft; the Old Axial Channel Deposits; the Capistrano Formation, siltstone facies; and the Monterey Formation). These geologic units would be impacted by project excavation activities. As such, development of the Build Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) has the potential to impact scientifically significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources, and preparation of a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) is recommended if the Build Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) is selected. The PMP should follow the guidelines contained in the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference, Environmental Handbook, Volume 1, Chapter 8 – Paleontology, as well as those from the SVP.

This document includes information used to determine the potential to encounter scientifically significant fossil remains in the geologic units found in the project area. It is not, and should not be used as, a geological assessment.

ii

PAL EON TO LOG I C A L I D EN T I F I C A T I ON REPOR T AND STA TE ROUTE 74 LOWER ORTEGA H IGHWAY WIDEN ING PRO J E C T

PAL EON TO LOG I C A L EVA LUA T I ON RE POR T SAN J UAN CAP I S T R ANO AND UN INCOR PORA TE D ORANGE COUN T Y , CA L I F O RN I A

APR I L 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................. v 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1‐1

1.1 Build Alternative 2............................................................................................................. 1‐2 1.1.1 Intersection Improvements ................................................................................................1‐3 1.1.2 Driveways ...........................................................................................................................1‐3 1.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .........................................................................................1‐3 1.1.4 Right‐of‐Way Acquisitions ..................................................................................................1‐3 1.1.5 Cut and Fill ..........................................................................................................................1‐4 1.1.6 Drainage Improvements .....................................................................................................1‐4 1.1.7 Retaining Walls ...................................................................................................................1‐4 1.1.8 Noise Attenuation...............................................................................................................1‐5 1.1.9 Signals and Lighting ............................................................................................................1‐5 1.1.10 Utilities................................................................................................................................1‐6 1.1.11 Pavement Rehabilitation ....................................................................................................1‐6 1.1.12 Excavation Parameters .......................................................................................................1‐6

1.2 No Build Alternative .......................................................................................................... 1‐6 1.3 Project Location ................................................................................................................ 1‐7

2.0 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT........................................................................... 2‐1 2.1 Federal Regulations........................................................................................................... 2‐1

2.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321–4375) ..............2‐1 2.1.2 Archaeological and Paleontological Salvage (23 United States Code 305).........................2‐1 2.1.3 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (16 USC 470aaa et seq.) ...............................2‐1

2.2 State Regulations .............................................................................................................. 2‐2 2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code 21000 et

seq.) ....................................................................................................................................2‐2 2.2.2 California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5..............................................................2‐2

3.0 SIGNIFICANCE................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Definition of Significance .................................................................................................. 3‐1

3.1.1 California Department of Transportation...........................................................................3‐1 3.1.2 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology....................................................................................3‐2 3.1.3 Other...................................................................................................................................3‐2

3.2 Summary of Significance ................................................................................................... 3‐3 4.0 SENSITIVITY...................................................................................................... 4‐1

4.1 Definition of Sensitivity ..................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1.1 California Department of Transportation...........................................................................4‐1 4.1.2 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology....................................................................................4‐2

4.2 Summary of Sensitivity...................................................................................................... 4‐3 5.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................ 5‐1

5.1 Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 5‐1 5.2 Fossil Locality Searches ..................................................................................................... 5‐1

iii

PAL EON TO LOG I C A L I D EN T I F I C A T I ON REPOR T AND STA TE ROUTE 74 LOWER ORTEGA H IGHWAY WIDEN ING PRO J E C T

PAL EON TO LOG I C A L EVA LUA T I ON RE POR T SAN J UAN CAP I S T R ANO AND UN INCOR PORA TE D ORANGE COUN T Y , CA L I F O RN I A

APR I L 2019

5.3 Field Survey ....................................................................................................................... 5‐1 5.4 Personnel .......................................................................................................................... 5‐1

5.4.1 Sarah Rieboldt, Ph.D. ..........................................................................................................5‐1 5.4.2 Paul Alms, M.Sc. .................................................................................................................5‐2

6.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 6‐1 6.1 Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 6‐1

6.1.1 Artificial Fill .........................................................................................................................6‐1 6.1.2 Young Axial Channel Deposits ............................................................................................6‐1 6.1.3 Old Axial Channel Deposits.................................................................................................6‐3 6.1.4 Capistrano Formation, Siltstone Facies ..............................................................................6‐3 6.1.5 Monterey Formation ..........................................................................................................6‐4

6.2 Fossil Locality Searches ..................................................................................................... 6‐4 6.3 Field Survey ....................................................................................................................... 6‐5

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................... 7‐1 8.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 8‐1

FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity Map........................................................................................ 1‐8 Figure 2: Geology Map ........................................................................................................................ 6‐2

TABLE Table A: Anticipated Maximum Excavation Depths for Components of the SR‐74 Lower

Ortega Highway Widening Project ............................................................................................. 1‐6

APPENDICES A: FOSSIL LOCALITY SEARCH RESULTS FROM THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM OF LOS ANGELES

COUNTY B: FOSSIL LOCALITY SEARCH RESULTS FROM THE SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM C: RÉSUMÉ

iv



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CBSP Commuters Bikeways Strategic Plan

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

City City of San Juan Capistrano

County County of Orange

DOE United States Department of Energy

EIR Environmental Impact Report

FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

ft foot/feet

IS Initial Study

LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County

M2 Measure M

mi mile(s)

MND Mitigated Negative Declaration

NALMA North American Land Mammal Age

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

v



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

NPS National Park Service

NOC Notice of Completion

NOD Notice of Determination

OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority

PDT Project Development Team

PE Permanent Easement

PM Post Mile

PMP Paleontological Mitigation Plan

project State Route 74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project

Proposed MND Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration

SDNHM San Diego Natural History Museum

SER Standard Environmental Reference

SHOPP State Highway Operation and Protection Program

SR-74 State Route 74

SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

TCE Temporary Construction Easement

USC United States Code

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

vi



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The State Route 74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project (project) is located in the City of San Juan Capistrano (City) and unincorporated Orange County (County) on State Route 74 (SR-74). The total length of the project is 1.1 miles (mi). The project proposes to widen the existing two-lane highway to four lanes with shoulders and median on SR-74 from Calle Entradero (Post Mile [PM] 1.0) to the City and County line (City/County line). In addition, restriping and pavement restoration improvements will begin at the City/County line to Reata Road (PM 2.1). Class II bicycle facilities are planned and would be provided on each side of the roadway as part of the 5-foot (ft) wide paved shoulders throughout the project limits. The existing sidewalk on the south side of SR-74 would be maintained in its existing location, with the exception of a portion of sidewalk at the intersection of Via Cordova, where the sidewalk would be shifted to the south and reconstructed to provide for the right-turn pocket at this intersection. A new sidewalk would be constructed to the east beyond Avenida Siega, would connect to the planned County sidewalk system to provide continuity, and would be consistent with City and County goals.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Previously, the project did not involve any federal action (funding, permit, or land); therefore, no federal actions were required for the project. In November 2017, Caltrans confirmed that the project is anticipated to be constructed with County of Orange (County) 30-year Measure M (M2) funds of $1.95 million. In addition, $0.4 million from the County Developer fee and $0.25 million in State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) funds are also available for constructing the project. Therefore, the project is now subject to federal environmental review requirements. Caltrans is the Lead Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in accordance with NEPA (United States Code [USC] Title 42, Section 4321 et seq.); and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations implementing NEPA (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Title 40, Parts 1500–1508). While this project is subject to the requirements of both NEPA and CEQA, separate environmental documents will be required: one that complies with NEPA and another that complies with CEQA.

An Initial Study with proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS [Proposed MND]) was circulated in July 2007. Three project alternatives had been considered and analyzed in the IS (Proposed MND) including Build Alternative 1: Northside widening, eliminating existing sidewalk, north of SR-74; Build Alternative 2: Northside widening, a sidewalk replacement, north of SR-74; and the No Build Alternative. Both Build Alternatives would meet the project’s purpose and need and are the same, with the exception of the removal of the existing sidewalk along the north side of SR-74 between Calle Entradero and Hunt Club Drive and the number of retaining walls under Build Alternative 2. During the July 2007 public meeting, Caltrans shared the conclusions of the IS/Proposed MND with the public to seek comments and ideas regarding the alternatives presented in the IS/Proposed MND document. As a result of the previous meetings and consultations and the nature of the public comments received on the IS/Proposed MND, Caltrans decided that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be prepared to analyze the environmental impacts for the project. After carefully considering all substantive comments received during the public circulation period and the balance between maintaining public access and reducing environmental effects, Build Alternative 2 was

1-1



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

identified as the Preferred Alternative. In accordance with CEQA, Caltrans certified that the project complies with CEQA, prepared findings for all significant impacts identified in the EIR, prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts that will not be mitigated below a level of significance, and certified that the findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been considered prior to project approval. Caltrans filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the State Clearinghouse in November 2009. The NOD indicated that the project would have significant impacts and that mitigation measures were included as conditions of project approval, findings were made, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted.

Within 180 days after publishing the NOD of the EIR, the City and the Hunt Club filed a joint lawsuit to invalidate the certified EIR due to inadequate analyses in the EIR in Orange County Superior Court. On November 16, 2010, Caltrans prepared a CEQA Re-Validation to the certified EIR to incorporate certain project features and improvements that were negotiated in the Settlement Agreement. On July 14, 2011, the City, the Hunt Club, and Caltrans reached a settlement of their disputes regarding the certified EIR and the associated CEQA Re-Validation document. The lawsuit shall not prevent or restrain Caltrans from implementing the project as described in the certified EIR and CEQA Re-Validation so long as: (a) Caltrans implementation of the project is in all respects consistent with the certified EIR and CEQA Re-Validation, (b) the project implements all of the mitigation measures described in the certified EIR and reflected in the CEQA Re-Validation, and (c) Caltrans complies with and implements each and all of the terms, conditions, requirements, and restrictions imposed upon Caltrans in connection with the implementation and construction of the project by the Settlement Agreement. As a result of the final determination of the project’s effect on the environment and the Settlement Agreement, only Build Alternative 2, the project design modification to this alternative included in the CEQA Re-Validation, and the No Build Alternative will be analyzed and discussed in the environmental documents under both NEPA and CEQA.

The Preferred Alternative (Build Alternative 2) and the No Build Alternative are described in further detail below.

1.1 BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2

As discussed previously, two 12 ft general-purpose lanes in each direction and a painted median are located at the eastern portion of the project area. Build Alternative 2 would widen this segment of the existing SR-74, primarily on the north side of the roadway, to minimize removal of mature trees and to avoid removal of the existing sidewalk on the south side of SR-74. However, the existing curved and meandering sidewalk on the north side of SR-74 between Calle Entradero and Hunt Club Drive will be reconstructed. Depending on the existing conditions within the public right-of-way and to the greatest extent reasonably possible, the reconstructed sidewalk may resemble the existing curve and meandering sidewalk. Build Alternative 2 would result in the roadbed changing from the current varying width of 62.3 ft at Calle Entradero and 24.6 ft at the City/County line to a width varying from 78 to 79 ft, including lanes, shoulders, and median. A paved 5 ft wide shoulder would be provided on each side of the roadway to accommodate Class II (striped on-road) bicycle facilities, except from Avenida Siega to the City/County line where the shoulder would transition to an 8 ft wide shoulder to merge with the County portion of the project. The edge of the pavement would have concrete curbs on each side of the roadway. The proposed additional lanes, shoulders, median,

1-2



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

drainages, driveways, and sidewalk have been developed consistent with the standards in the 6th Edition of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, or its latest edition.

1.1.1 Intersection Improvements

There are five roadways that intersect with SR-74 from the south within the project limits: Calle Entradero, Via Cordova, Via Cristal, Via Errecarte, and Avenida Siega. North of SR-74, Via Cordova becomes Hunt Club Drive and Avenida Siega becomes Shadetree Lane. Additionally, to the north, Palm Hill Drive, Strawberry Lane, and Toyon Drive provide access to private property. Each intersection would be modified/widened to accommodate the additional lanes, median, and shoulders. At intersections where there are existing right-turn pockets (Via Cordova and Via Cristal), the right-turn pocket would remain. No new intersections are proposed.

1.1.2 Driveways

There are 11 existing driveways on SR-74’s north side within the project limits. Each of the 11 driveways would be modified to meet the grade of the widened roadway and to include reconstruction of the curb return. These driveways would be designed to maintain sight distance and avoid safety issues. Along the south side east of the project limits, there are currently two paved driveways. These would be paved and modified to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). No new driveways are proposed.

Build Alternative 2 would construct a retaining wall that would prevent access to SR-74 from an existing unpaved driveway east of Shadetree Lane and approximately 300 feet west of the City/ County line. When this parcel was subdivided, the vehicular access rights were relinquished with City approval. Any use of these access points along SR-74 is considered illegal. Additionally, this driveway is nonoperational for residential use due to its steep slope and unpaved condition.

1.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

The existing sidewalk on the south side of SR-74 would be maintained in its current location, with the exception of a portion of sidewalk at the intersection with Via Cordova, where the sidewalk would be shifted to the south and reconstructed to provide for the right-turn pocket at this intersection. A new sidewalk would be constructed to the east beyond Avenida Siega and would connect to the planned County sidewalk system to provide continuity, consistent with City and County goals. The existing sidewalk on the north side of SR-74 would be reconstructed from Calle Entradero to Hunt Club Drive within the existing public right-of-way.

Class II bicycle facilities are planned and would be provided on each side of the roadway as part of the 5-foot wide paved shoulders throughout the project Limits. These facilities would be in conformance with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP). The City’s General Plan states in its Circulation Element that there is a need to promote an extensive public bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails network. These bicycle facilities would comply with the City’s goals.

1-3



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

1.1.4 Right-of-Way Acquisitions

Build Alternative 2 would require partial acquisitions from five parcels adjacent to SR-74 for the road widening; however, no displacements or relocations would be required from these parcels. Although a guardhouse immediately north of the Hunt Club Drive intersection would not be acquired for Build Alternative 2, in order to address the potential hazard of vehicles stopped at the guardhouse from queuing on to SR-74, the existing guardhouse at this specific location, including all structures, fixtures, utility connections, and landscaping, would be relocated as part of the Settlement Agreement. Caltrans will compensate the Hunt Club for the relocation of the guardhouse.

Following construction of the traffic signal Improvements, the relocated guardhouse shall accommodate at least as much distance for queued vehicles between the guard gate and the roadway as were accommodated by the original location of the guardhouse prior to the installation of the Traffic Signal Improvements. The guardhouse relocation shall be substantially completed prior to final acceptance of the project construction and shall be completed prior to the recordation of a Notice of Completion (NOC) pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3093.

In addition, Alternative 2 would require a total of 38 parcels adjacent to SR-74 as Permanent Easements (PEs) and a total of 46 parcels for Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs). The PEs will allow access for maintenance of the proposed noise barriers and retaining walls, and the TCEs are to accommodate construction of the proposed noise barriers, the four-way traffic signal, sidewalks, and retaining walls.

1.1.5 Cut and Fill

The roadway widening within the project limits would require cut slopes approximately 20 ft deep on the north side of SR-74 between Hunt Club Drive and the City/County line, and a 700 ft long fill slope up to 8 ft high on the south side of SR-74 between Avenida Siega and the City/County line.

1.1.6 Drainage Improvements

Because most of the widening would occur on the north side of SR-74, all existing drainage facilities would be modified and extended to intercept flows at the proposed edge of pavement. Several additional drainage culverts would be added (the locations and numbers of the drainage culverts will not be determined until the design phase). The existing concrete channel along the north side of SR-74 at approximately Station 104+00 to Shade Tree Lane will be removed and replaced in-place with a 24-inch pipe. Bioswale will also be added on the north side of SR-74 throughout the project limits. There would be no drainage systems added to the south side. However, existing drainage on the south side from Avenida Siega, where widening would occur to the City/County line, would be modified to intercept flows at the proposed edge of pavement.

1.1.7 Retaining Walls

There are five retaining walls on the north side of SR-74 under consideration, all of which would be designed to meet Caltrans Division of Structures requirements. They are:

1-4



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

A 160 ft long, 2 to 16 ft high retaining wall on the north side of Palm Hill Drive;

A 560 ft long, 2 to 20 ft high retaining wall from Palm Hill Drive to an access road;

A 100 ft long, 2 to 10 ft high retaining wall just east of the abovementioned access road;

A 280 ft long, 2 to 14 ft high retaining wall between Toyon Drive and an access road; and

A 1,060 ft long, 8 to 24 ft high retaining wall between Shadetree Lane and the City/County line.

In addition to the five retaining walls discussed above, two additional short retaining walls would be constructed north of the new reconstructed sidewalk, along the south edge of the existing equestrian trail. The wall type would be finalized during the design phase.

1.1.8 Noise Attenuation

Two noise barriers (NB Nos. 2 and 3) were recommended for this project as a community enhancement to protect residences along the south side of SR-74 as part of the project features within the certified Final EIR (FEIR). In addition, the Noise Study Report (NSR) (2018) and the Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) (2019) recommend an additional noise barrier (NB No. 6) due to new predicted noise analysis in accordance with the 2011 Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol:

NB No. 2: A 712 ft long, maximum of 16 ft high noise barrier on the south side of SR-74 from Via Cordova to Via Cristal.

NB No. 3: A 1,215 ft long, maximum of 16 ft high noise barrier on the south side of SR-74 from Via Cristal to Via Errecarte.

NB No. 6: A 41 ft long noise barrier within the private property line on the westbound side of SR-74 was analyzed to shield Receptor R-120.1

Based on the Settlement Agreement, proposed noise barriers will use transparent sound attenuating material for the upper approximately 5 ft of the barriers. Caltrans and the City entered into a Contribution Agreement in which the City agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance of the noise barriers (but not their initial installation) on the City property.

The preliminary noise abatement decision presented in this document is based on preliminary project alignments and profiles, which may be subject to change. As such, the physical characteristics of noise abatement described herein may also be subject to change. If pertinent parameters change substantially during the final project design, the preliminary noise abatement decision may be changed or eliminated from the final project design. A final decision, made by the Project Development Team (PDT), to construct noise abatement will be made upon completion of the project design and public input.

As part of the public review period for the project, the property owners and non-owner occupants will be sent a noise barrier survey letter to request each owner’s or occupant’s opinion on whether

1 The recommended noise barrier NB No. 6 is located where interior noise mitigation N-1 (e.g., double-paned windows and mechanical heating and cooling) was recommended in the certified FEIR.

1-5



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

or not they would prefer a noise barrier and what height they would prefer the barrier to be based on the range of feasible and reasonable heights.

1.1.9 Signals and Lighting

Currently, there are no traffic signals within the project limits. Based on the Settlement Agreement, a four-way traffic signal at the intersection of SR-74 and Via Cordova/Hunt Club Drive will be constructed. Therefore, TCEs will be required on both north and south sides of SR-74 and Via Cordova/Hunt Club Drive for installing the four-way traffic signal.

1.1.10 Utilities

All utilities (e.g., power, gas, sewer, and telephone lines) impacted by this project would be relocated or replaced in-kind within the project limits. In addition, an existing concrete channel along the north side of SR-74 at approximately Station 104+00 to Shade Tree Lane will be undergrounded as part of the project.

1.1.11 Pavement Rehabilitation

The project would also rehabilitate the existing pavement. The remaining existing pavement would be ground and overlaid with new rubberized asphalt concrete (AC) pavement to provide adequate strength to accommodate the projected 2045 traffic demand.

1.1.12 Excavation Parameters

The expected excavation depths for the various components of Build Alternative 2 range from as shallow as 2 inches for pavement rehabilitation to as deep as 20 feet for the cut slope on the north side of SR-74 east of Via Cordova. Excavation depths are presented in Table A, below, and are based on personal communication with Caltrans in July 2018.

Table A: Anticipated Maximum Excavation Depths for Components of the SR-74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project

Project Component Depth

Driveways 6–8 inches

Sidewalks 6–8 inches

Cut slope north side of SR-74 (between Hunt Club Drive and City/County line) 20 ft

Cut slope on south side of SR-74 (between Avenida Siega and the City/County line) 3–5 ft

Drainage improvements (inlets) 7 ft

Drainage improvements (ditch/bioswale) 1 ft

Drainage improvement (reinforced concrete pipe west of Shadetree Lane) 1 ft

Retaining walls (36 in diameter foundation) 6 ft

Noise barriers (16 in diameter foundation) 15 ft

Signals and lighting 13 ft

Utility relocation (underground lines) 4.5 ft

Utility relocation (overhead poles) 7 ft

Pavement work (Orange County portion) 2 ft

Pavement rehabilitation 2 inches

Source: Personal communication, California Department of Transportation (July 2018). ft = foot/feet SR-74 = State Route 74

1-6



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

1.2 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No Build Alternative does not include improvements to existing SR-74. Therefore, SR-74 would be maintained in its existing two-lane condition and would continue to be used by commuters, recreation traffic, and commercial trucks. The No Build Alternative is not consistent with regional and local transportation plans, would not alleviate existing and projected congestion in the study area, and would not meet the project’s purpose and need. The No Build Alternative serves as the baseline against which to evaluate the effects of Build Alternative 2.

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION

The location and regional vicinity of the project are illustrated on Figure 1, as depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Cañada Gobernadora, California and San Juan Capistrano, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps in Township 7 South, Range 7 West, Section 32 and Township 8 South, Range 7 West, Sections 5 and 6, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (USGS, 1988 and 1981, respectively).

1-7

Ã

Ã

ÃÃ

Ã

Ã Ã

Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Ã22 Project Vicinity

§̈¦

§̈¦

15

§̈¦

Riverside Ã1 County ÃÃ74

Project Location San Diego County

5

Ã261 5

Orange Ã55

Ã133 County

405

§̈¦

Ã73 Ã241

LEGEND FIGURE 1 Project Location

SR-74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project 0 1000 2000 Project Location FEET 12-ORA-74 PM 1.0/2.1 SOURCE: Caltrans (4/3/2019); USGS 7.5' Quad - Canada Gobernadora (1988) and San Juan Capistrano (1981), CA EA 086920 I:\CDT1609\GIS\MXD\Task38_LowerOrtegaHwy\ProjectLocation_USGS.mxd (4/8/2019)



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

2.0 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

This project is subject to federal and State regulations regarding paleontological resources. The following discussion of applicable regulations has been excerpted from the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER), Environmental Handbook, Volume 1, Chapter 8 on Paleontology (Caltrans, 2017) and supplemented through additional research on the language of the individual regulations.

2.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS

A project must comply with one or more federal regulations concerning paleontological resources if: (1) the project involves land under the jurisdiction of a federal agency, (2) a federal agency has oversight on the project, and/or (3) a permit, license, authorization, or funding from a federal agency is required to complete the project. Because this project is federally funded, the following federal regulations apply to this project.

2.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 United States Code 4321–4375)

NEPA established a national policy for the protection, promotion, enhancement, and understanding of the environment and created the Council on Environmental Quality. As part of this act, Section 101(b)(4) (42 USC 4331) seeks to “…preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our natural heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice.” NEPA requires that the environmental effects of a proposed federal project or action be evaluated, and regulations for implementing this evaluation are found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500–1508. Because the project is federally funded, compliance with NEPA regulations is required for the project as a whole. The applicability of NEPA to paleontological resources depends on whether Section 101(b)(4) is interpreted to include fossils. However, compliance with CEQA regulations and Caltrans guidelines regarding paleontological resources will meet the requirements of NEPA regardless of whether paleontological resources are deemed to be covered under this act.

2.1.2 Archaeological and Paleontological Salvage (23 United States Code 305)

As part of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (23 USC et seq.), this federal law authorizes the appropriation and use of federal funds for paleontological salvage as necessary by the highway department of any state, in compliance with 16 USC 431–433. According to 23 CFR 1.9(a), the use of federal-aid funds must be in conformity with federal and State laws. Under this statute, mitigation of impacts to paleontological resources during development of this project may be an eligible federal project cost, provided the necessary documentation is submitted to the FHWA.

2.1.3 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (16 USC 470aaa et seq.)

This act prohibits the excavation, removal, or damage of any paleontological resources located on federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the Interior or Agriculture (e.g., Bureau of Land Management [BLM], National Park Service [NPS], and United States Forest Service [USFS]). The statute establishes criminal and civil penalties for fossil theft and vandalism on federal lands. Federal land managing agencies (e.g., the BLM, NPS, USFS, and United States Army Corps of Engineers) may

2-1



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

issue paleontological permits for conducting project-related investigations, both inventory and mitigation, on lands under their jurisdiction.

2.2 STATE REGULATIONS

Under State law, paleontological resources are protected by both CEQA and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5, both of which are discussed in more detail below.

2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.)

The purpose of CEQA is to provide a Statewide policy of environmental protection. As part of this protection, State and local agencies are required to analyze, disclose, and, when feasible, mitigate the environmental impacts of, or find alternatives to, proposed projects.

The State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.) provide regulations for the implementation of CEQA and include more specific direction on the process of documenting, analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the environmental impacts of a project. To assist in this process, Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides a sample checklist form that may be used to identify and explain the degree of impact a project will have on a variety of environmental aspects, including paleontological resources (Section V(c)).

As stated in Section 15002(b)(1-3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, CEQA applies to governmental action, including activities that are undertaken by, financed by, or require approval from a governmental agency. Because this project is undertaken by governmental agencies, CEQA regulations apply.

2.2.2 California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5

This law protects historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources on public lands in California and establishes criminal and civil penalties for violations.

Specifically, PRC 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, 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.”

Because this project involves public lands as defined in Section 5097.5(b), project proponents are required to comply with this regulation.

2-2



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

3.0 SIGNIFICANCE

3.1 DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANCE

If a paleontological resource, such as a rock unit or formation with the potential to contain fossils, cannot be avoided during construction, the significance of the resource must be assessed before mitigation measures are proposed. The scientific significance or importance of a paleontological resource is based on various attributes of that resource, and in the interest of thoroughness, definitions of significance from Caltrans, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), and one additional source are included below.

3.1.1 California Department of Transportation

According to Caltrans (2017), there are two generally recognized types of paleontological significance:

National: A National Natural Landmark-eligible paleontological resource is an area of national significance (as defined under 36 CFR 62) that contains an outstanding example of fossil evidence of the development of life on earth. This is the only codified definition of paleontological significance.

Scientific: Definitions of a scientifically significant paleontological resource can vary by jurisdictional agency and paleontological practitioner.

Generally, scientifically significant paleontological resources are identified sites or geological deposits containing individual fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique or unusual, are diagnostically or stratigraphically important, and add to the existing body of knowledge in specific areas stratigraphically, taxonomically, or regionally. Particularly important are fossils found in situ (undisturbed) in primary context (e.g., fossils that have not been subjected to disturbance subsequent to their burial and fossilization). As such, they aid in stratigraphic correlation, particularly those offering data for the interpretation of tectonic events, geomorphologic evolution, paleoclimatology, the relationships between aquatic and terrestrial species, and evolution in general. Discovery of in situ fossil-bearing deposits is rare for many species, especially vertebrates. Terrestrial vertebrate fossils are often assigned greater significance than other fossils because they are rarer than other types of fossils. This is primarily due to the fact that the best conditions for fossil preservation include little or no disturbance after death and quick burial in oxygen-depleted, fine-grained sediments. While these conditions often exist in marine settings, they are relatively rare in terrestrial settings. This has ramifications with regard to the amount of scientific study needed to characterize an individual species adequately and, therefore, affects how relative sensitivities are assigned to formations and rock units.

3-1



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

3.1.2 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

The SVP provides the following definitions of significance (SVP, 2010):

Significant Paleontological Resources are fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plans, 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).

3.1.3 Other

Eisentraut and Cooper (2002) developed a useful set of criteria for judging whether fossils are scientifically significant. Using their method, fossils can be judged scientifically significant if they meet any of the criteria within the following categories:

Taxonomy: Assemblages that contain rare or unknown taxa, such as defining new (previously unknown to science) species, or representing a species that is the first or has very limited occurrence within the area or formation.

Evolution: Fossils that represent important stages or links in evolutionary relationships or that fill gaps or enhance underrepresented intervals in the stratigraphic record.

Biostratigraphy: Fossils that are important for determining or confining relative geologic (stratigraphic) ages or for use in defining regional to interregional stratigraphic associations. These fossils are often known as biostratigraphic markers and represent plants or animals that existed for only a short and restricted period in the geologic past.

Paleoecology: Fossils that are important for reconstructing ancient organism community structure and interpretation of ancient sedimentary environments. Depending on which fossils are found, much can be learned about the ancient environment, from water depth, temperature, and salinity to what the substrate was like (muddy, sandy, or rocky), and even whether the area was in a high-energy location (e.g., a beach) or a low-energy location (e.g., a bay). Even terrestrial animals can contain information about the ancient environment. For example, an abundance of grazing animals such as horse, bison, and mammoth suggest more of a grassland environment, while an abundance of browsing animals such as deer, mastodon, and camel suggest more of a brushy environment. Preserved parts of plants can also lend insight into what was growing in the area at a particular time. In addition, by studying the ratios of different species to each other’s population densities, relationships between predator and prey can be determined.

There is a complex but vital interrelationship among evolution, biostratigraphy, and paleoecology: biostratigraphy (the record of fossil succession and progression) is the expression of evolution (change in populations of organisms through time), which in turn is driven by natural selection pressures exerted by changing environments (paleoecology).

3-2



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

Taphonomy: Fossils that are exceptionally well or unusually/uniquely preserved or that are relatively rare in the fossil record. This could include preservation of soft tissues such as hair, skin, or feathers from animals or the leaves/stems of plants that are not commonly fossilized.

3.2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE

All vertebrate fossils that can be related to a stratigraphic context are considered scientifically significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources. Invertebrate and plant fossils as well as other environmental indicators associated with vertebrate fossils are considered scientifically significant. Certain invertebrate and plant fossils that are regionally rare or uncommon, or that help to define stratigraphy, age, or taxonomic relationships, are considered scientifically significant.

3-3



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

4.0 SENSITIVITY

4.1 DEFINITION OF SENSITIVITY

Sensitivity is often stated as “potential” because decisions about how to manage paleontological resources must be based on “potential.” The actual situation cannot be known until grading and excavation for the project is underway. Caltrans and the SVP each have a ranking system to describe paleontological sensitivity, as described in the following sections.

4.1.1 California Department of Transportation

In accordance with the Caltrans SER guidelines for paleontology (Caltrans, 2017), the sensitivity of rock units and formations that may contain paleontological resources is assessed on the basis of high, low, or no potential for paleontological resources as follows:

High Potential: Rock units which, based on previous studies, contain or are likely to contain significant vertebrate, significant invertebrate, or significant plant fossils. These units include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations that contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. These units may also include some volcanic and low-grade metamorphic rock units. Fossiliferous deposits with very limited geographic extent or an uncommon origin (e.g., tar pits and caves) are given special consideration and ranked as highly sensitive. High sensitivity includes the potential for containing (1) abundant vertebrate fossils; (2) a few significant fossils (large or small vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant fossils) that may provide new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, and/or stratigraphic data; (3) areas that may contain datable organic remains older than Recent, including Neotoma middens; and/or (4) areas that may contain unique new vertebrate deposits, traces, and/or trackways. Areas with a high potential for containing significant paleontological resources require monitoring and mitigation during grading and excavation.

Low Potential: This category includes sedimentary rock units that (1) are potentially fossiliferous, but have not yielded significant fossils in the past; (2) have not yet yielded fossils but possess a potential to contain fossil remains; or (3) contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils if the taxonomy, phylogeny, and ecology of the species contained in the rock are well understood. Sedimentary rocks expected to contain vertebrate fossils are not placed in this category because vertebrates are generally rare and found in more localized stratum. Rock units designated as low potential generally do not require monitoring and mitigation during grading and excavation. However, as excavation for construction gets underway, it is possible that new and unanticipated paleontological resources might be encountered. If this occurs, a Construction Change Order (CCO) must be prepared to have a qualified Principal Paleontologist evaluate the resource. If the resource is determined to be significant, monitoring and mitigation are required during grading and excavation from that time on.

No Potential: Rock units of intrusive igneous origin, most extrusive igneous rocks, and moderately to highly metamorphosed rocks are classified as having no potential to contain

4-1



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

significant paleontological resources. For projects encountering only these types of rock units, paleontological resources can generally be eliminated as a concern when the Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) is prepared and no further action taken.

4.1.2 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

According to the SVP (2010), Paleontological Potential is the potential for the presence of significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. All sedimentary rocks, some volcanic rocks, and some metamorphic rocks have potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources, and review of available literature may further refine the potential of each rock unit, formation, or facies. The SVP has four categories of potential or sensitivity: high, low, none, and undetermined. If a geographic area or geological unit is classified as having undetermined potential for paleontological resources, studies must be undertaken to determine whether that rock unit has a sensitivity of either high, low, or none. These categories are described in more detail below.

High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing additional significant paleontological resources. Rocks units classified as having high potential for producing paleontological resources include, but are not limited to: sedimentary formations and some volcaniclastic formations (e.g., ashes or tephras), some low-grade metamorphic rocks that contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils (e.g., middle Holocene and older, fine-grained fluvial sandstones, argillaceous and carbonate-rich paleosols, cross-bedded point bar sandstones, and fine-grained marine sandstones). Paleontological potential consists of both (a) the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils; and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, biochronologic, or stratigraphic data. Rock units that contain potentially datable organic remains older than the late Holocene, including deposits associated with animal nests or middens, and rock units that may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also classified as having high potential.

Low Potential: Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified professional paleontologist may allow determination that some rock units have a low potential for yielding significant fossils. Such rock units will be poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections, or based on general scientific consensus, fossils will only be preserved in rare circumstances; the presence of fossils is the exception, not the rule (e.g., basalt flows or Recent colluvium). Rock units with low potential typically will not require measures to protect fossils.

No Potential: Some rock units have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources (e.g., high-grade metamorphic rocks [such as gneisses and schists] and plutonic igneous rocks [such as granites and diorites]). Rock units with no potential require no protection measures relative to paleontological resources.

4-2



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment are considered to have undetermined potential. Further study is necessary to determine whether these rock units have high, low, or no potential to contain significant paleontological resources. A field survey by a qualified professional to specifically determine the paleontological resource potential of these rock units is required before a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) can be developed. In cases where no subsurface data are available, paleontological potential can sometimes be determined by strategically located excavations into subsurface stratigraphy.

4.2 SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY

A formation or rock unit has paleontological sensitivity or the potential to contain significant paleontological resources if it previously has produced, or has lithologies conducive to the preservation of, vertebrate fossils and associated or regionally uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils. All sedimentary rocks, certain extrusive volcanic rocks, and mildly metamorphosed rocks are considered to have potential for paleontological resources.

4-3



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

5.0 METHODS

5.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

LSA examined geologic maps of the area and reviewed relevant geological and paleontological literature to determine which geologic units are present in the project area and whether fossils have been recovered from those or similar geologic units elsewhere in the region. As geologic formations and units may extend over large geographic areas and contain similar lithologies and fossils, the literature review includes areas well beyond the project area. The results of this literature review include an overview of the geology of the project area and a discussion of the paleontological sensitivity (or potential) of the geologic units within the project area.

5.2 FOSSIL LOCALITY SEARCHES

In June 2018, fossil locality searches were conducted through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) and the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM). The locality searches included a 1 mi buffer around the current project area. The purpose of a locality search is to establish the status and extent of previously recorded paleontological resources in and adjacent to the study area. The locality search results from Dr. Samuel McLeod, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the LACM, and Katie McComas, Paleontology Collections Assistant from SDNHM, are summarized in Section 6.2, and copies of the letters from the LACM and SDNHM are provided in Appendices A and B, respectively.

5.3 FIELD SURVEY

The purpose of a field survey is to note the sediments and to identify any unrecorded paleontological resources exposed on the surface of a project area. In this way, impacts to existing, unrecorded paleontological material may be mitigated prior to the beginning of ground-disturbing activities and portions of the project area that are more likely to contain paleontological resources may be identified.

On September 10, 2018, LSA paleontologist Paul Alms conducted a field survey of the project area. Safe access along the entire length of the project area was not possible due to active traffic along SR-74. Inaccessible areas were visually inspected from a distance. Special attention was given to areas that had exposed ground surfaces and cut slopes. The results of the field survey are summarized in Section 6.3 below.

5.4 PERSONNEL

5.4.1 Sarah Rieboldt, Ph.D.

Dr. Sarah Rieboldt, Associate and Senior Paleontologist at LSA, prepared this PIR/PER. Dr. Rieboldt received her Ph.D. in Paleontology from the University of California, Berkeley, and has extensive experience surveying for and collecting paleontological resources; salvaging large fossil specimens; collecting bulk sediment samples; identifying, preparing, and curating fossil material; and writing paleontological assessment reports and final mitigation monitoring reports at the conclusion of construction projects. She has conducted paleontological and geological fieldwork in California,

5-1



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas, and Alabama and has 8 years of experience working with natural history collections in several museums (the Field Museum of Natural History, the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History). She has worked as a geologist and paleontological consultant on many different projects, including carbon sequestration and astrobiology research programs funded by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), respectively, as well as on projects for the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Caltrans, and various private developers in California, Nevada, and Utah. Her résumé is included in Appendix C.

5.4.2 Paul Alms, M.Sc.

Mr. Alms brings a broad range of experience in the paleontology, geology, biology, and environmental science fields. He received his M.Sc. in Geology from California State University, Fullerton in 2014. His field and laboratory experience includes working on projects throughout California, Washington, and Missouri. He has several years of experience working as a biology consultant, environmental consultant, paleontological consultant, and working as a paleontological curator. In addition, Mr. Alms has experience monitoring the excavation and construction process on an oil pipeline, multiple commercial and residential developments, and conducting field surveys. Mr. Alms serves as a liaison to project developers and contractors and monitors construction operations. He is responsible for monitoring and collecting archeological and paleontological resources during earth-disturbing activities; the identification, preparation, and curation of paleontological resources; the collection of contextual geologic data; the preparation of data; and intensive mapping of cultural and paleontological resources for site reports. Mr. Alms is also responsible for writing paleontological resource assessment reports and mitigation plans. Mr. Alms conducted the field survey for this PIR/PER.

5-2



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

6.0 RESULTS

6.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

The project area is in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, a 900 mi long northwest-southeast trending structural blocks with similarly trending faults, that extends from the Transverse Ranges in the north to the tip of Baja California in the south and includes the Los Angeles Basin (California Geological Survey, 2002; Norris and Webb, 1976). The total width of this province is 225 mi, extending from the Colorado Desert in the east, across the continental shelf, to the Southern Channel Islands (Santa Barbara, San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente) in the west (Sharp, 1976). This province is characterized by a series of mountain ranges and valleys that trend in a northwest-southeast direction roughly parallel to the San Andreas Fault Zone (Norris and Webb, 1976; Sharp, 1976). It contains extensive pre-Cenozoic (more than 66 million years ago [Ma]) igneous and metamorphic rocks covered by a veneer of Cenozoic (less than 66 Ma) sedimentary deposits (Norris and Webb, 1976; Wright, 1991).

Geologic mapping by Morton and Miller (2006) shows the project area contains Young Axial Channel Deposits; Old Axial Channel Deposits; the Capistrano Formation, siltstone facies; and the Monterey Formation (Figure 2). Artificial Fill is also likely present from the surface to varying depths throughout much of the project area where it was placed during construction of SR-74. These geologic units and their paleontological sensitivities are described in more detail below. Dates for the geologic time periods and epochs used in this report are derived from the chronostratigraphic chart prepared by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS, 2018).

6.1.1 Artificial Fill

Artificial Fill consists of sediments that have been removed from one location and transported to another location by human activity, rather than by natural means. The transportation distance can vary from a few feet to many miles, and composition is dependent on the source and purpose. Artificial Fill will sometimes contain modern debris such as asphalt, wood, bricks, concrete, metal, glass, plastic, and even plant material.

While Artificial Fill may contain fossils, these fossils have been removed from their original location and are thus out of stratigraphic context. Therefore, they are not considered important for scientific study. As such, Artificial Fill has no paleontological sensitivity.

6.1.2 Young Axial Channel Deposits

Young Axial Channel Deposits are Holocene to late Pleistocene (less than 126,000 years ago) in age and consist of slightly to moderately consolidated silt, sand, and gravel (Morton and Miller, 2006). They formed as streams and washes carried sediment down from higher elevations in the Santa Ana Mountains.

Although Holocene (less than 11,700 years ago) deposits can contain remains of plants and animals, only those from the middle to early Holocene (4,200–11,700 years ago; ICS, 2018) are considered scientifically important (SVP, 2010), and fossils from this time interval are not very common.

6-1

o

o

o

Qyaa

Tcs

Tm

Qyaa

Qoaa

Qoaa

Qyls

Qyls

Tn Qvoa

Qvoa

Tcs

Qyls?

Qvoa

Qyls

Qyls?

Qvoa

Qyls

Qyls Qvoa

Qoaa

Qw

Tm Qoaa

l 0

E

LEGEND FIGURE2

FET600

P roje ctLoc a tionGeology

Qw-Wash d ep ositsQyls-Young la nd slid e d e p ositsQya a -Young a xia lcha nneld e p osits,a rena c eous

Qoa a -Old a xia lcha nneld e p osits,a rena c eousQvoa a -Veryold a xia lcha nneld e p osits,a rena c eousTn -NiguelForm a tionTcs-Ca p istra no Form a tion,siltstone fa c iesTm -MontereyForm a tiona – a rena c eous

SR-74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening ProjectGeology

12-ORA-74P M1.0/2.1EA086920SOURCE:Ca ltra ns(6/5/2018);Esri(2018);Morton a nd Mile r (206);

I:\CDT1609\GIS\MXD\Task38_LowerOrtega Hwy\Geology.m xd (4/4/2019)

0 300



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

The Holocene deposits likely overlie older, Pleistocene deposits, which have produced scientifically important fossils elsewhere in Orange County and the region (Jefferson 1991a, 1991b; Miller, 1971; Reynolds and Reynolds, 1991; Springer et al., 2009). These older, Pleistocene deposits span the end of the Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age (NALMA), which dates from 11,000 to 240,000 years ago (Sanders et al., 2009) and was named for the Rancho La Brea fossil site in central Los Angeles. The presence of Bison defines the beginning of the Rancholabrean NALMA (Bell et al., 2004), but fossils from this time also include other large and small mammals, reptiles, fish, invertebrates, and plants (Jefferson, 1991a, 1991b; Miller, 1971; Reynolds and Reynolds, 1991; Springer et al., 2009). There is a potential to find these types of fossils in the older sediments of this geologic unit, which may be encountered below a depth of approximately 10 ft. Therefore, these deposits are assigned low paleontological sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 10 ft and high sensitivity below that mark.

6.1.3 Old Axial Channel Deposits

The Old Axial Channel Deposits formed in the same way as the Young Axial Channel Deposits described above (see Section 6.1.2 for discussion); however, these deposits are older and have a slightly different consistency. They accumulated during the late to middle Pleistocene (11,700– 781,000) and consist of well-consolidated, moderately to well-indurated, reddish-brown sand and silt with scattered gravel and pebble layers (Morton and Miller, 2006).

These deposits formed during an interval that spans two NALMAs: the Rancholabrean (11,000– 240,000 years ago) and the Irvingtonian (240,000 years ago–1.8 Ma) (Bell, 2004; Sanders et al., 2009). Fossils are known in similar Rancholabrean and Irvingtonian deposits from excavations for roads, housing developments, and quarries, as well as scientific investigations within the Southern California area (Bell et al., 2004; Jefferson, 1991a, 1991b; Miller, 1971; Pajak et al., 1996). These fossils include mammoths, mastodons, horses, camels, saber-toothed cats, coyotes, deer, peccaries, and sloths, as well as smaller animals like rodents, rabbits, birds, reptiles, and fish. As such, these deposits are considered to have high paleontological sensitivity.

6.1.4 Capistrano Formation, Siltstone Facies

The marine Capistrano Formation was deposited during the early Pliocene to late Miocene (3.6– 11.62 Ma). In this area, the formation has two facies: (1) a sandstone facies formally named the Oso Member, and (2) a siltstone facies (Morton and Miller, 2006). The two facies are distinguished by their depositional environments and corresponding compositions, but only the siltstone facies is present within the project site. The siltstone facies accumulated in deep shelf and slope environments and consists of white to pale gray, massive to poorly bedded, friable siltstone and mudstone, with local diatomaceous and tuffaceous beds (Morton and Miller, 2006; Morton et al., 1976).

This formation has produced abundant and diverse scientifically significant fossils, many of which come from the siltstone facies. These fossils include bony fish, sharks, whales, porpoises, sea lions, sea cows, and marine birds (Barnes and Raschke, 1991; Démeré and Berta, 2005; Ebeling, 1962; Eisentraut and Cooper, 2002; Smith, 2011). As such, these deposits are considered to have high paleontological sensitivity.

6-3



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

6.1.5 Monterey Formation

The name “Monterey Formation” was first used to describe siliceous and diatomaceous shale and siltstone in Monterey, California; however, this unit has been extended south to include deposits from the Coast Ranges through the Los Angeles Basin to the San Joaquin Hills (Morton and Miller, 2006). This marine late to middle Miocene (5.333–15.97 Ma) formation consists of interbedded tuffaceous, diatomaceous, and siliceous shale and siltstone, with calcareous sandstone and sandy limestone (Morton and Miller, 2006; Morton et al., 1976).

Bramlette (1946) states that the Monterey Formation in California has produced diatoms, foraminifera, molluscs, fish, whales, desmostylians, birds, and very rarely land mammals and land plants, which would have washed in from shore. In the San Joaquin Hills, the formation has yielded abundant fish remains, foraminifera, and diatoms locally (Morton and Miller, 2006; Morton et al., 1976; Smith, 1960). Multiple species of bony fish have been recovered from the Monterey Formation (Jordan and Gilbert, 1919), as well as chimaeroid fish (Popov and Takeuchi, 2011), which have cartilaginous skeletons and are related to sharks and rays. Several desmostylians have been noted from this formation (Barnes, 2013; Barnes and Aranda-Manteca, 1997), including the most complete skeleton of a desmostylian ever recovered, which came from Laguna Niguel, south of the project area (Barnes, 2013). This formation has also produced several specimens of an extinct dolphin, Pithanodelphis, from the Laguna Niguel area (Barnes, 1985), and the oldest fossil of a true porpoise, Salumiphocaena stocktoni, from the Palos Verdes Peninsula in Los Angeles County (Fajardo-Mellor et al., 2006). Based on the abundance, diversity, and scientific significance of the fossils previously recovered from the Monterey Formation, this unit is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity.

6.2 FOSSIL LOCALITY SEARCHES

According to the fossil locality searches conducted by the LACM and SDNHM, there are no known fossil localities within the boundaries of the project area. Neither museum has records of fossil localities near the project area from the Young Axial Channel Deposits, and only the SDNHM has records near the project area from deposits similar to the Old Axial Channel Deposits. However, both museums have records of fossil localities near the project area from the Capistrano Formation and the Monterey Formation.

The SDNHM has five fossil localities from Pleistocene alluvial deposits similar to the Old Axial Channel Deposits mapped within the project area. These localities have produced fossils of horse, mammoth, camel relatives, and giant ground sloth.

The closest LACM locality from the Capistrano Formation is LACM 5792, which is located west of the southwestern portion of the project area in the hills on the north side of Horno Creek. This locality produced a substantial fauna consisting predominantly of sharks, bony fishes, sea lions, whales, and sea cows, with some elephants and pond turtles. From the siltstone facies of the Capistrano Formation, the SDNHM has 13 fossil localities within approximately 4 mi of the project area. These localities produce trace fossils, as well as impressions and body fossils of algae, angiosperms, sponges, clams, sharks, bony fish, flightless auk, walruses, eared seals, dolphins, porpoises, beaked whales, and baleen whales.

6-4



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

The closest LACM locality from the Monterey Formation is LACM 3510, located northwest of the project area on the east side of Alicia Parkway, southwest of Sulphur Creek Reservoir. This locality yielded specimens of sea lion (Imagotaria) and toothed whale (Odontoceti). The SDNHM has 41 fossil localities from the Monterey Formation that lie between approximately 3 and 5 mi of the project area. These localities produced impressions of a wide variety of plants (e.g., roses, walnut trees, plane trees, and laurels), marine invertebrates (e.g., crabs), and marine vertebrates (e.g., sharks, bony fish, walrus, eared seals, dolphins, baleen whales, and dugongs).

Copies of the LACM and SDNHM fossil locality search results letters are included in Appendices A and B, respectively.

6.3 FIELD SURVEY

As stated above, a field survey for the project was conducted onn September 10, 2018. Visibility along the length of the project area was poor, with landscaping or old pavement covering much of the ground surface. The only native deposits observed were from approximately Shadetree Lane to Strawberry Lane, where outcrops of whitish siltstone consistent with the siltstone facies of the Capistrano Formation mapped by Morton and Miller (2006) were noted. All other areas with exposed ground surface throughout the project area contained Artificial Fill. No paleontological resources were observed during the field survey.

6-5



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of this study and consideration of the development methods of the project, no special paleontological situations that would require project redesign to avoid critical fossil localities or deposits are anticipated for this project. However, the majority of the project area contains geologic units that have high paleontological sensitivity (e.g., the Young Axial Channel Deposits below a depth of 10 ft; the Old Axial Channel Deposits; the Capistrano Formation, siltstone facies; and the Monterey Formation). These geologic units would be impacted by excavation activities for Build Alternative 2. As such, development of Build Alternative 2 has the potential to impact scientifically significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources, and preparation of a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) is recommended if this Alternative is selected. The PMP shall be developed concurrently with the final design plans and shall follow the Caltrans guidelines in the SER Environmental Handbook, Volume 1, Chapter 8 (Caltrans, 2017), as well as guidelines from the SVP. Following these guidelines, the PMP shall include sections describing project activities, the geologic units within the project area and their paleontological sensitivities, the work plan for mitigating project impacts to paleontological resources, estimates of monitoring schedules and costs, decision thresholds for monitoring levels and fossil collections, a recommended repository for recovered fossils, any necessary permits, and the appropriate documentation at the end of the monitoring program.

Once the PMP has been prepared, the paleontological resource protocols and procedures within it shall be incorporated into the project plans, specifications, and estimates. Implementation of these protocols and procedures will reduce project impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources.

7-1



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

8.0 REFERENCES

Barnes, Lawrence G. 1985 The Late Miocene Dolphin Pithanodelphis Abel, 1905 (Cetacea: Kentriodontidae) from

California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Contributions in Science 367:1-27.

2013 A New Genus and Species of Late Miocene Paleoparadoxiid (Mammalia: Desmostylia) from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Contributions in Science 521:51-114.

Barnes, Lawrence G., and Francisco J. Aranda-Manteca 1997 New Middle Miocene Paleoparadoxidae (Mammalia, Desmostylia) from Baja California

and California. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17, Supplement to Number 3, Abstracts of Papers. pp. 30A-31A.

Barnes, Lawrence G., and Rodney E. Raschke 1991 Gomphotaria pugnax, a New Genus and Species of Late Miocene Dusignathine Otariid

Pinniped (Mammalia: Carnivora) from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Contributions in Science 426:1-16.

Bell, C.J., E.L. Lundelius Jr., A.D. Barnosky, R.W. Graham, E.H. Lindsay, D.R. Ruez Jr., H.A. Semken Jr., S.D. Webb, and R.J. Zakrzewski 2004 The Blancan, Irvingtonian, and Rancholabrean Mammal Ages, p. 232–314. In M.O.

Woodburne (ed.), Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and Geochronology. Columbia University Press, New York.

Bramlette, M.N. 1946 The Monterey Formation of California and the Origin of Its Siliceous Rocks. United States

Geological Survey Professional Paper 212. 57 pp.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2017 Standard Environmental Reference, Volume 1, Chapter 8 – Paleontology. Website:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/physical/Ch08Paleo/chap08paleo.htm. Last updated November 15, 2017.

California Geological Survey 2002 California Geomorphic Provinces. California Geologic Survey Note 36. California

Department of Conservation.

Deméré, Thomas A., and Annalisa Berta 2005 New skeletal material of Thalassoleon (Otariidae: Pinnipedia) from the Late Miocene-Early

Pliocene (Hemphillian) of California. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 45(4):379-411.

8-1

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/physical/Ch08Paleo/chap08paleo.htm



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

Ebeling, Alfred W. 1962 Scopelogadus (?) capistranensis, a New Fossil Melamphaid (Pisces: Teleostei) from

Capistrano Beach, California. Postilla, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History 71:1–6.

Eisentraut, P., and J. Cooper 2002 Development of a Model Curation Program for Orange County’s Archaeological and

Paleontological Collections. Prepared by California State University, Fullerton and submitted to the County of Orange Public Facilities Resources Department/Orange County Harbors, Beaches, and Parks (PFRD/HBP).

Fajardo-Mellor, Liliana, Annalisa Berta, Robert Brownell, Jr., Claudia Boy, and R. Natalie Goodall 2006 The Phylogenetic Relationships and Biogeography of True Porpoises (Mammalia:

Phocoenidae) Based on Morphological Data. Marine Mammal Science 22(4):910-932.

International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) 2018 International Chronostratigraphic Chart. Published by the International Commission on

Stratigraphy. July 2018. Website: http://www.stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ ChronostratChart2017-02.pdf.

Jefferson, George T. 1991a A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part One: Non-marine Lower

Vertebrate and Avian Taxa. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports No. 5, Los Angeles.

1991b A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two: Mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports No. 7, Los Angeles.

Jordan, David Starr, and James Zacchaeus Gilbert 1919 Fossil Fishes of the Miocene (Monterey) Formations. Chapter II in Fossil Fishes of Southern

California. Stanford University Publications, University Series, Biological Sciences pp. 13-60, pl. 3, 7-9, 11-15, 17-20, 22-26, 28-31.

Miller, Wade E. 1971 Pleistocene Vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity (Exclusive of Rancho La Brea).

Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Science: No. 10.

Morton, Douglas M., and Fred K. Miller 2006 Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30-minute by 60-minute quadrangles,

California. Digital preparation by Pamela M. Cosette and Kelly R. Bovard. Prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California Geological Survey. USGS Open File Report 2006-1217. Map Scale 1:100,000.

Morton, Paul K., Russell V. Miller, and James R. Evans. 1976 Environmental Geology of Orange County, California. California Division of Mines and

Geology Open-File Report 79-8 LA. 474 pp.

8-2

http://www.stratigraphy.org/ICSchart



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb 1976 Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Santa Barbara.

Pajak, Alois F., Jr., Eric Scott, and Christopher J. Bell 1996 A Review of the Biostratigraphy of Pliocene and Pleistocene Sediments in the Elsinore Fault

Zone, Riverside County, California. PaleoBios 17(2-4):28-49.

Popov, Evgeny, and Gary Takeuchi 2011 Miocene – Early Pliocene Chimaeroid Fishes (Holocephali, Chimaeroidei) from California

and a Review of the Global Neogene Chimaeroid Diversity and Distribution. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 31, Supplement to Number 2, Abstracts of Papers. pp.175.

Reynolds, R.E., and R.L. Reynolds 1991 The Pleistocene Beneath our Feet: Near-surface Pleistocene Fossils in Inland Southern

California Basins. In M.O. Woodburne, R.E. Reynolds, and D.P. Whistler, eds., Inland Southern California: The Last 70 Million Years, Redlands, San Bernardino County Museum Special Publication 38(3 and 4): 41–43.

Sanders, A.E., R.E. Weems, and L.B. Albright 2009 Formalization of the Middle Pleistocene “Ten Mile Beds” in South Carolina with Evidence

for Placement of the Irvingtonian-Rancholabrean Boundary. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 64:369-375.

Sharp, R.P. 1976 Geology: Field Guide to Southern California. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Second Edition: 181.

Smith, N. Adam 2011 Taxonomic Revision and Phylogenetic Analysis of the Flightless Mancallinae (Aves, Pan-

Alcidae). ZooKeys 91:1–116.

Smith, Patsy Beckstead 1960 Foraminifera of the Monterey Shale and the Puente Formation, Santa Ana Mountains and

San Juan Capistrano Area, California. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 294-M. 495 pp., pl. 57-59.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to

Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. p. 11.

Springer, Kathleen, Eric Scott, J. Christopher Sagebiel, and Lyndon K. Murray 2009 The Diamond Valley Lake Local Fauna: Late Pleistocene Vertebrates from Inland Southern

California. In L.B. Albright, III, ed. Papers in Geology, Vertebrate Paleontology, and Biostratigraphy in Honor of Michael O. Woodburne, Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 65, pp. 217–236.

8-3



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1988 Cañada Gobernadora, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Published 1968,

photorevised 1988. United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

1981 San Juan Capistrano, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Published 1968, photorevised 1981. United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.

Wright, T.L. 1991 Structural Geology and Tectonic Evolution of the Los Angeles Basin, California. In K.T.

Biddle ed., Active Margin Basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 52, pp. 35 – 134.

8-4

P A L E O N T O L O G I C A L I D E N T I F I C A T I O N R E P O R T A N D

P A L E O N T O L O G I C A L E V A L U A T I O N R E P O R T

A P R I L 2 0 1 9

S T A T E R O U T E 7 4 L O W E R O R T E G A H I G H W A Y W I D E N I N G P R O J E C T

S A N J U A N C A P I S T R A N O A N D U N I N C O R P O R A T E D O R A N G E C O U N T Y , C A L I F O R N I A

APPENDIX A

FOSSIL LOCALITY SEARCH RESULTS FROM THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Vertebrate Paleontology Section Telephone: (213) 763-3325

e-mail: [email protected]

13 June 2018

LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614

Attn: Sarah Rieboldt, Ph.D., Senior Paleontological Resources Manager

re: Paleontological Resources Records Check for the proposed SR-74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project, LSA Project # CDT1609.38, in the City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, project area

Dear Sarah:

I have thoroughly searched our paleontology collection records for the locality and specimen data for the proposed SR-74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project, LSA Project # CDT1609.38, in the City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, project area as outlined on the portion of the San Juan Capistrano USGS topographic quadrangle map that you sent to me via e-mail on 30 May 2018. We do not have any vertebrate fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project area boundaries, but we do have localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur at in the proposed project area, either at the surface or at depth

On the southeastern side of the proposed project area and in all the drainages the surface deposits consist of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as alluvial fan deposits from the hills adjacent to the northwest or as fluvial deposits from San Juan Creek that currently flows immediately to the southeast. These younger Quaternary deposits are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils, in the uppermost layers, but at relatively shallow depth older sedimentary deposits may well contain significant vertebrate fossils. At the very northeastern end of the proposed project area the bedrock in the hills consist of the marine late Miocene Monterey Formation. We have a great number of vertebrate fossil localities from the Monterey Formation in Orange County, primarily northwest of the proposed project area. Our closest

mailto:[email protected]

vertebrate fossil locality from the Monterey Formation is probably LACM 3510, northwest of the proposed project area on the east side of Alicia Parkway northwest of Sulphur Creek Reservoir, that produced fossil specimens of sea lion, Imagotaria, and toothed whale, Odontoceti. Bedrock in the hills on the northwestern side of the proposed project area consist almost entirely of the marine late Miocene to early Pliocene Capistrano Formation. Our closest vertebrate fossil locality from the Capistrano Formation is LACM 5792, situated directly west of the southwestern portion of the proposed project area in the hills on the north side of Horno Creek. Locality LACM 5792 produced a substantial fossil fauna, primarily of marine vertebrates such as sharks, bony fishes, sea lions, whales, and sea cows, but also including some terrestrial and freshwater specimens, including elephants and pond turtles. A faunal list from locality LACM 5792 is provided in the appendix.

Shallow excavations in the younger Quaternary Alluvium in the drainages and on the southeastern side of the proposed project area probably will not encounter any significant vertebrate fossils. Deeper excavations there that extend down into older sedimentary deposits, or any excavations in the Capistrano Formation or Monterey Formation exposures on the northwestern side of the proposed project area, may well encounter significant fossil vertebrate remains. Any substantial excavations in the proposed project area, therefore, should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally collect any specimens without impeding development. Sediment samples should also be collected and processed to determine the small fossil potential in the proposed project area. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.

This records search covers only the vertebrate paleontology records of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. It is not intended to be a thorough paleontological survey of the proposed project area covering other institutional records, a literature survey, or any potential on-site survey.

Sincerely,

Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D. Vertebrate Paleontology

enclosures: appendix, invoice

Fossil fauna from the Capistrano Formation at locality LACM 5792

Chondrichthyes Mammalia Carcharhiniformes Artiodactyla

Carcharhinidae - requiem sharks Antilocapridae - pronghorn antelopes Carcharhinus obscurus Camelidae - camels Hemipristis serra Carnivora

Hexanchiformes Otariidae - sea lions & walruses Hexanchidae - cow sharks Odobeninae

Hexanchus Otariinae Lamniformes Cetacea

Lamnidae - mackerel sharks Balaenidae - right whales Carcharocles megalodon Balaenopteridae - rorqual whales Carcharodon carcharias Cetotheriidae - primitive baleen whales Isurus hastalis Delphinidae - dolphins Isurus oxyrinchus Stenella Isurus planus Phocoenidae - porpoises Lamna Physeteridae - sperm whales

Myliobatiformes Scaldicetus Myliobatidae - eagle rays Pontoporiidae - “fresh water” dolphins

Myliobatis Parapontoporia Proboscidea - elephants

Osteichthyes Sirenia Perciformes Dugongidae - sea cows

Labridae - wrasses Semicossyphus pulcher

Chelonia Emydidae - pond turtles

Clemmys marmorata

Aves Pelecaniformes

Phalacrocoracidae - cormorants Podicipediformes

Podicipedidae - grebes Podiceps parvus

P:\CDT1609.38 - Lower Ortega Hwy (SR-74)\Paleo\PIR-PER\Lower SR-74 PIR-PER_190410.docx «04/10/19»



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

APPENDIX B

FOSSIL LOCALITY SEARCH RESULTS FROM THE SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM

20 June 2018

Dr. Sarah Rieboldt

LSA

20 Executive Park, Suite 200

Irvine, CA 92614

RE: Paleontological Records Search – State Route 74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project (LSA

Project Number CDT1609.38)

Dear Dr. Rieboldt:

This letter presents the results of a paleontological records search conducted for the State

Route (SR-) 74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project (Project), located in the City of San Juan

Capistrano, Orange County, CA. The project alignment lies along SR-74 between Calle Entradero in the

west and the City limit in the east.

A review of published geological maps covering the Project alignment and surrounding area was

conducted to determine the specific geologic units underlying the Project. Each geologic unit was

subsequently assigned a paleontological resource potential following guidelines developed by the

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP, 2010). Published geological reports (e.g., Morton and Miller,

2006) covering the Project area indicate that the proposed Project has the potential to impact late

Pleistocene- to Holocene-age young axial-channel deposits, early to middle Pleistocene-age old axial-

channel deposits, the siltstone facies of the late Miocene- to early Pliocene-age Capistrano Formation,

and the middle to late Miocene-age Monterey Formation. These geologic units and their paleontological

potential are summarized in detail in the following section.

In addition, a search of the paleontological collection records housed at the San Diego Natural

History Museum (SDNHM) was conducted in order to determine if any documented fossil collection

localities occur at the Project alignment or within the immediate surrounding area (Figure 1). The

SDNHM does not have any recorded fossil localities within one mile of the Project alignment; however,

there are numerous localities within approximately five miles of the Project alignment, including five

localities from Pleistocene-age nonmarine deposits and alluvium (discussed under old axial-channel

deposits), 13 localities from the Capistrano Formation, and 41 localities from the Monterey Formation.

These localities are described in greater detail below. An additional 12 localities depicted in Figure 1 are

from geologic units that are not anticipated to be impacted by construction of the proposed Project: late

Pleistocene-age marine deposits, the early Miocene-age Topanga Formation, and the middle Eocene-age

Santiago Formation.

Geologic Rock Units Underlying the Project Alignment

Young axial-channel deposits – The majority of the Project alignment is underlain at the

surface by late Pleistocene- to Holocene-age young axial-channel deposits (mapped as Qya; Morton and

Miller, 2006), which lie along modern drainages throughout the Proposed Project alignment. Young

axial-channel deposits are generally less than 10,000 years old, and range in composition from poorly

consolidated, fine-grained silty sands to cobble gravels.

State Route 74 Lower Ortega Highway Widening Project - Paleontological Records Search 2

No fossils are currently known from young axial-channel deposits in the vicinity of the Project

alignment. Young axial-channel deposits are assigned a low paleontological potential based on their

relatively young geologic age and lack of recorded fossil collection localities. However, along the Project

alignment, these deposits may overlie old axial-channel deposits (high paleontological potential, see

next), the Capistrano Formation (high paleontological potential, see below), and/or the Monterey

Formation (high paleontological potential, see below). The actual depth of the contact between surficial

deposits and the underlying older, high paleontological potential strata is not precisely known, and may

occur as shallow as 5 feet below existing surface grade. As such, the young axial-channel deposits are

specifically assigned a low paleontological potential from 0 to 5 feet below grade, and an undetermined

paleontological potential at depths greater than 5 feet. This depth threshold represents a conservative

approach to predicting where impacts to more deeply buried paleontological resources may occur in the

subsurface. However, a deeper threshold between low and high paleontological potential strata may be

appropriate for larger drainages where thicker deposits of young sediments are more likely to have

accumulated.

Old axial-channel deposits – Middle to late Pleistocene-age old axial-channel deposits

(mapped as Qoa; Morton and Miller, 2006) may underlie surficial deposits along portions of the Project

alignment, and are generally found along the upper margins of existing stream drainages, including San

Juan Creek. Although the precise age of these deposits is not known, their position within river valleys

and potential association with the dated marine terraces along the coast suggest an age range of

approximately 700,000 to 10,000 years old.

The SDNHM has five recorded fossil collection localities from Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits

that lie 3.5 to 4 miles south of the Project alignment, and produced teeth of horse and mammoth and

partial humeri of a camelid and a giant ground sloth. Fossils have also been collected from Pleistocene-

age alluvial deposits at several locations elsewhere in coastal Orange County and San Diego County.

Recovered fossils include skeletal remains of reptiles and birds (e.g., pond turtles, lizards, passenger

pigeons, and hawks), small bodied mammals (e.g., moles, shrews, mice, and squirrels), and large-bodied

mammals (e.g., ground sloths, wolves, bears, tapirs, horses, camels, deer, giant bison, mastodon, and

mammoths) (Chandler, 1982; Jefferson, 1991; Majors, 1993; Deméré and Walsh, 1993; Deméré et al.,

2013). Due to the rare, but scientifically significant, vertebrate fossils discovered elsewhere in Orange

County and San Diego County in Pleistocene-age nonmarine deposits, the old axial-channel deposits are

assigned a high paleontological potential.

Capistrano Formation, siltstone facies – The siltstone facies of the late Miocene- to early

Pliocene-age (7 to 5 Ma) Capistrano Formation is exposed along the north side of SR-74, and appears to

underlie surficial deposits along the majority of the Project alignment. The sediments exposed along the

Project alignment belong to the informal siltstone member (facies), which consists of pale gray, massive

to crudely bedded, friable, siltstones and mudstones containing thin, fine-grained sandstone and

calcareous mudstone beds and sparse diatomaceous and tuffaceous beds that were deposited in

deeper, continental shelf waters (Morton and Miller, 2006).

The SDNHM has 13 recorded fossil localities from marine deposits of the Capistrano Formation

within approximately four miles of the Project alignment, including a locality just over one mile north of

the Project alignment. The localities are from the siltstone facies of the Capistrano Formation, and

produced trace fossils (e.g., branching burrows in matrix and borings in shell) and fossilized impressions


or remains of plants (e.g., algae and angiosperm leaf impressions), marine invertebrates (e.g., sponge

spicules and internal and external molds of clam shells), and marine vertebrates (e.g., teeth and bones

of a variety of sharks, bony fish, flightless auk, walruses, eared seals, dolphins, porpoises, beaked

whales, and baleen whales). The siltstone facies of the Capistrano Formation is known to be abundantly

fossiliferous in Orange County. Exposures have yielded well-preserved fossil remains of a wide variety of

marine organisms including microscopic “phytoplankton” (e.g., coccoliths, diatoms, and silicoflagellates)

and “zooplankton” (e.g., foraminifers), macroscopic benthic invertebrates (e.g., brachiopods, scallops,

oysters, clams, acorn barnacles, crabs, sea urchins, and sand dollars), cartilaginous fish (e.g., chimeras,

skates, guitarfish, stingrays, bat rays, angel sharks, bullhead sharks, smoothhound sharks, gray sharks,

basking sharks, great white sharks, tiger sharks, mako sharks, and “big toothed” sharks), bony fish (e.g.,

lantern fish, herring, sculpin, jacks, croakers, wrasses, barracuda, mackerel, halibut, triggerfish, and

saber-tooth salmon), sea birds (e.g., grebes, gannets, cormorants, shearwaters, and flightless auks),

pinnipeds (e.g., fur seals, early walruses), toothed whales (e.g., dolphins, porpoises, river dolphins,

belugas, beaked whales, and sperm whales), baleen whales (e.g., right whales, cetotheres, and fin

whales), and sea cow (Barnes, 1976; Barnes et al., 1984; Barnes and Raschke, 1991; Deméré and Berta,

2005; Domning, 1978; Howard, 1983; Ingle, 1979; Kern and Wicander, 1974; Smith, 2011; White, 1956).

The Capistrano Formation has also produced a small but significant assemblage of terrestrial mammals

(e.g., rabbits, rodents, horses, and camels), as well as an important, low diversity flora of land plants

(e.g., oaks, avocados, sycamores, willows, and palms) (John Minch and Associates, Inc., 1996, 1997). The

Capistrano Formation has been assigned a high paleontological potential due to the diverse assemblages

of marine vertebrates recovered from these deposits.

Monterey Formation – The Monterey Formation is exposed along the north side of SR-74, and

appears to underlie surficial deposits at the eastern end of the Project alignment. The middle to late

Miocene-age (approximately 16 to 8 million years old) Monterey Formation was deposited in a series of

subsiding, low-oxygen marine basins, in conditions conducive to the gradual accumulation of abundant,

undisturbed fine sediments and biogenic debris. In the vicinity of the Project alignment, the Monterey

Formation consists of thinly-bedded, hard but fractured and fissile, marine diatomaceous shale with

interbeds of silty shale, siliceous shale, and siltstone, along with minor chert, limestone, and calcareous

shale lenses (Tan, 1999).

The SDNHM has 41 recorded fossil localities from deposits of the Monterey Formation that lie

between 3 and 5 miles southeast of the Project alignment. The localities produced impressions of plants

(e.g., leaves of roses, walnut trees, plane trees, and laurels), and skeletal remains of marine

invertebrates (e.g., crab carapaces) and marine vertebrates (e.g., bones and teeth of sharks, bony fish,

walrus, eared seals, dolphins, baleen whales, and dugongs). The Monterey Formation has produced

extremely diverse assemblages of marine organisms ranging from microscopic diatoms and radiolarians

to enormous sharks and baleen whales. The kinds of fossils found in the formation typically vary

according to rock type, with diverse assemblages of diatoms, silicoflagellates, and radiolarians more

characteristic of the siliceous shales and diatomites, and coccoliths, foraminiferans, sharks, rays, bony

fish, sea birds, and marine mammals more characteristic of the phosphatic and calcareous mud shales.

Well-preserved fossil remains of marine mammals, including pinnipeds, toothed whales, baleen whales,

sea cows, and hippo-like desmostylians have also been recovered from diatomaceous strata of the

Monterey Formation (Barnes, 1976). Because of the extremely significant remains of fossil marine


mammals, bony fish, and mollusks recovered from the Monterey Formation, it is assigned a high

paleontological potential.

Summary and Recommendations

The high paleontological potential of old axial-channel deposits, the Capistrano Formation, and

the Monterey Formation in Orange County, as well as the presence of numerous SDNHM fossil

collection localities in the vicinity of the Project alignment, suggest the potential for construction of the

proposed Project to result in impacts to paleontological resources (SVP, 2010). Any proposed excavation

activities that extend deep enough to encounter previously undisturbed deposits of these geologic units

have the potential to impact the paleontological resources preserved therein. For these reasons,

implementation of a complete paleontological resource mitigation program during ground-disturbing

activities is recommended.

The fossil collection locality information contained within this paleontological records search

should be considered private and is the sole property of the San Diego Natural History Museum. Any use

or reprocessing of information contained within this document beyond the scope of the SR-74 Lower

Ortega Highway Widening Project is prohibited.

If you have any questions concerning these findings please feel free to contact me at 619-255-

0321 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Katie McComas

Paleontology Collections Assistant

San Diego Natural History Museum

Enc: Figure 1: Project map

Appendix: List of SDNHM fossil localities in the vicinity of the Project

Literature Cited

Barnes, L.G. 1976. Outline of eastern North Pacific fossil cetacean assemblages. Systematic Zoology, 25:

321–343.

Barnes, L.G., R.E. Raschke, and J.C. Brown. 1984. A fossil baleen whale from the Capistrano Formation in

Laguna Hills, California. Memoirs of the Natural History Foundation of Orange County 1: 11–18.

mailto:[email protected]?subject=Paleontological%20records%20search


Barnes, L.G. and R.E. Raschke. 1991. Gomphotaria pugnax, a new genus and species of late Miocene

dusignathine otariid pinniped (Mammalia: Carnivora) from California. Natural History of Los

Angeles County, Contributions in Science 426: 1–16.

Chandler, R.M. 1982. A second record of Pleistocene Passenger Pigeon from California. Condor 84: 242.

Deméré, T.A. and A. Berta. 2005. New skeletal material of Thalassoleon (Otaridae: Pinnipedia) from the

Late Miocene–Early Pliocene (Hemphillian) of California. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of

Natural History 45: 379–411.

Deméré, T.A., K.A. Randall, B.O. Riney, and S.A. Siren. 2013. Discovery of an extinct giant bison (Bison

latifrons) in Pleistocene (Rancholabrean) fluvial strata in the San Luis Rey River Valley, San Diego

County, California. In, B.J. Olson (ed.), San Luis Rey on Display: geoscience in northern San Diego

County. San Diego Association of Geologists, field trip guidebook, pp. 123–135.

Deméré, T.A., and S.L. Walsh. 1993. Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego. Prepared for the

Department of Public Works, County of San Diego, 1–68.

Domning, D.P. 1978. Sirenian Evolution in the North Pacific Ocean. University of California Publications

in Geological Sciences 118: 1–176.

Howard, H. 1983. A list of the extinct fossil birds of California. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy

of Sciences 82: 1–11.

Ingle, J.C., Jr. 1979. Biostratigraphy and paleoecology of Early Miocene through Early Pleistocene benthic

and planktonic Foraminifera, San Joaquin Hills-Newport Bay-Dana Point Area, Orange County,

California. In, C.J. Stuart (ed.), A Guidebook to Miocene Lithofacies and Depositional

Environments, Coastal Southern California and Northwest Baja California. Pacific Section, Soc.

Econ. Mineralogists and Paleontologists, p. 53–79.

Jefferson, G.T. 1991. A catalog of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum

of Los Angeles County, Technical Reports 7: 1–129.

John Minch and Associates, Inc. 1996. Paleontological Report: “New Greenfield Quarry,” San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor between Greenfield Avenue and Crown Valley Parkway, Laguna

Niguel, County of Orange, California. Unpublished final report prepared for Sverdrup

Corporation, July 10, 1996; 31 p.

John Minch and Associates, Inc. 1997. Final Paleontological Report: San Joaquin Hills Transportation

Corridor from Interstate 5 to El Toro Road and from Station Number 1010+00 to Jamboree Road,

County of Orange, California. Unpublished final report prepared for Sverdrup Corporation,

February 1997; 485 p.

Kern, J.P. and E.R. Wicander. 1974. Origin of a bathymetrically displaced marine invertebrate fauna in

the upper part of the Capistrano Formation (lower Pliocene), southern California. Journal of

Paleontology 48: 495–505.

Majors, C.P. 1993. Preliminary report on a late Pleistocene vertebrate assemblage from Bonita, San

Diego County, California. In, R.G. Dundas and D.J. Long (eds.), New Additions to the Pleistocene

Vertebrate Record of California. PaleoBios 15: 63–77.


Morton, D.M., and F.K. Miller. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’

quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1217. Scale 1:100,000.

Smith, N.A. 2011. Taxonomic revision and phylogenetic analysis of the flightless Mancallinae (Aves, Pan-

Alcidae). ZooKeys 91: 1–116.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation

of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, p. 1-11.

Tan, S.S. 1999. Geologic map of the San Clemente 7.5’ quadrangle, Orange and San Diego Counties,

California: a digital database, version 1.0: California Department of Conservation Division of

Mines and Geology. Scale 1:24,000.

White, W.R. 1956. Pliocene and Miocene Foraminifera from the Capistrano Formation, Orange County,

California. Journal of Paleontology 30: 237–260.



A P R I L 2 0 1 9

APPENDIX C

RÉSUMÉ

P:\CDT1609.38 - Lower Ortega Hwy (SR-74)\Paleo\PIR-PER\Lower SR-74 PIR-PER_190410.docx «04/10/19»

SARAH RIEBOLDT, PH.D. ASSOCIATE / SENIOR PALEONTOLOGIST

EXPERTISE

Paleontological Mitigation Reports

Paleontological Resource Monitoring

Fossil Collection, Salvage, Identification, and Curation

Federal, State, and Local Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS) Regarding Paleontological Resources

EDUCATION

University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D., Paleontology, 2005.

University of Colorado, Boulder, Magna cum Laude B.A., Biology, Minor in Geology, 1999.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Paleontologist, LSA, Irvine, California, April 2013–Present.

Project Manager, Department of Geological Sciences, California State University, Fullerton, and John D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Center, Santa Ana, California, April 2012–April 2013.

Geologist, Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, April 2010–February 2012.

Collections Assistant, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, February 2009–February 2010.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Dr. Rieboldt is an Associate and Senior Paleontologist at LSA with 18 years of experience in the paleontology and geology fields. She has conducted paleontological and geological fieldwork in California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas, and Alabama and has 8 years of experience working with natural history collections in several museums (the Field Museum of Natural History, the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History). She has worked as a geologist and paleontological consultant on many different projects, including carbon sequestration and astrobiology research programs funded by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), respectively, as well as on projects for the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Caltrans, and various private developers in California, Nevada, and Utah. She also has experience in monitoring the excavation and construction process on residential developments and a natural gas pipeline, as well as monitoring drilling and coring operations.

Dr. Rieboldt oversees the paleontological resources program at LSA and prepares and reviews paleontological assessment reports, mitigation plans, and monitoring reports. She provides guidance on the various federal, State, and local regulations and guidelines regarding paleontological resources as they apply to projects throughout the state. She also is responsible for scheduling paleontological monitors on both large- and small-scale projects.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE State Route 120 at Union Road Interchange Project Manteca, California LSA conducted environmental technical studies for the State Route 120 (SR 120) at Union Road Interchange Project in Manteca in San Joaquin County. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposed this project to improve the functionality of the interchange by modifying the existing overcrossings and ramps, constructing auxiliary lanes, and installing signals for the interchange. Dr. Rieboldt analyzed the potential for the No Build Alternative and two Build Alternatives to impact paleontological resources in the Paleontological Identification Report (PIR) for this project.

Tegner Road Bridge Replacement at Turlock Irrigation District Lateral #5Canal BRLO-5938(196) ProjectStanislaus County, California LSA prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tegner Road Bridge Replacement at Turlock Irrigation District Lateral #5 Canal BRLO-5938(196) Project in Stanislaus County. The proposed project involves the replacement of the bridge and improvements to the road approaches on Tegner Road and Harding Road. Dr. Rieboldt analyzed the potential for the project to impact paleontological resources and summarized the results of the analysis in a paleontological resources technical memorandum, as well as in the appropriate section of the environmental document.

1


PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)

Science Writer, University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, California, April 2009–November 2009.

Collections Assistant, Chicago Academy of Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, October 2008–February 2009.

Postdoctoral Research Associate, Center for Integrative Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, May 2005–December 2005.

Paleontological Consultant, Ric Windmiller Consulting, Auburn, California, June 2000–June 2005.

Graduate Student Researcher, Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, January 2004– December 2004.

Science Writer, University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, California, June 2003–December 2003.

Paleontological Consultant, California Department of Parks and Recreation, San Francisco, California, and University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, California, June 2001–December 2002.

Graduate Student Researcher, University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, California, August 2002– December 2002.

Paleontological Consultant, ECORP Consulting, Inc., Roseville, California, June 2002.

Paleontological Consultant, Jones & Stokes Associates, Sacramento, California, August 2001–January 2002.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) North County Corridor New State Route 108 ProjectStanislaus County, California LSA conducted environmental technical studies for the North County Corridor New State Route 108 (SR-108) Project in Stanislaus County. The proposed project involves relocating the current alignment of SR-108 in order to reduce congestion, improve traffic flow, and accommodate forecasted traffic demands in the northern part of Stanislaus County. LSA prepared the Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report and at the request of Caltrans, Dr. Rieboldt prepared a preliminary Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) for this project.

SR-120/McKinley Avenue Interchange Project Manteca, California LSA is conducting environmental technical studies for the State Route 120 (SR-120)/McKinley Avenue Interchange Project in Manteca in San Joaquin County. The project involves the construction of a new interchange at SR-120 and McKinley Avenue in order to reduce congestion, improve traffic flow, and accommodate forecasted traffic demands in and around the City of Manteca. Dr. Rieboldt assisted in the preparation of the Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report and prepared the PMP for this project.

Digital 395 ProjectSan Bernardino, Kern, Inyo, and Mono Counties, California; Douglas and Washoe Counties and Carson City, Nevada Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the Digital 395 Project, which involved the installation of over 590 miles of fiber-optic line along United States Highway 395 on the east side of the Sierra Nevada. Running from Barstow, California, to Reno, Nevada, the project route passed through lands managed by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; the United States Department of Defense; the States of California and Nevada; and the lands of several Native American tribes. As such, this project was subject to multiple federal, State, and local regulations and policies regarding paleontological resources.

State Route 99/120 Interchange Connector ProjectManteca, California

LSA prepared the environmental document and conducted environmental technical studies for the State Route 99/120 Interchange Connector Project in Manteca in San Joaquin County. Caltrans District 10, in cooperation with the San Joaquin Council of Governments proposed reconstructing the existing interchange in order to reduce congestion, improve operations, and accommodate forecasted traffic demands in and around the City of Manteca. Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) for this project.

2


PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)

Collections Assistant, University of California Museum of Paleontology, Berkeley, California, August 1999– December 1999.

Collections Assistant, University of Colorado Museum of Natural History, Boulder, Colorado, September 1997–May 1999.

TEACHING

Science Specialist, San Roque School, Santa Barbara, California, January 2006–June 2008.

Graduate Student Instructor, Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, August 2000– December 2000, January 2001– May 2001, and January 2003– May 2003.

AFFILIATIONS

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

Geological Society of America

PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) Interstate 5/Sperry Road Interchange ProjectPatterson, California LSA prepared the environmental document and conducted environmental technical studies for the Interstate 5/Sperry Road Interchange Project in Patterson, Stanislaus County. Caltrans, in conjunction with Stanislaus County and the City of Patterson proposed this project to improve operations, enhance safety, and increase capacity of the interchange. For this project, a No Build Alternative and two Build Alternatives, each with a variant, were evaluated. Dr. Rieboldt prepared the PIR/PER to determine the potential for this project to impact paleontological resources and make recommendations regarding mitigation of those impacts.

Mitsubishi Plant Expansion ProjectSacramento, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Assessment for Mitsubishi Plant Expansion Project in Sacramento. This project included expanding the existing plant and constructing a new office building, all of which involved excavation into the late to middle Pleistocene Riverbank Formation, which is sensitive for paleontological resources. The paleontological assessment evaluated impacts to resources and made mitigation recommendations.

Rock Island and Hyla Pipe Vaults ProjectSan Luis Obispo County, California LSA conducted paleontological resources monitoring for the Rock Island and Hyla Pipe Vaults Project in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County. This project involved installation of two buried concrete pipe vault crossings on the Arroyo Grande Oil Field operated by Freeport McMoran Oil and Gas. Dr. Rieboldt oversaw this project from beginning to end, preparing the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program, scheduling and supervising the paleontological monitoring, and preparing the final Paleontological Resources Mitigation Monitoring Report.

Newhall Ranch Road Bridge Widening ProjectSanta Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Newhall Ranch Road Bridge Widening Project, located in Santa Clarita, California. This project addressed existing and projected mobility and circulation deficiencies within the City and included widening the existing Newhall Ranch Road Bridge over Francisquito Creek and conducting associated transportation improvements. Through background research, a literature review, and fossil locality search, this assessment evaluated the potential for the project to impact paleontological resources and developed mitigation measures to minimize those impacts.

3


PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) Railroad Avenue Multi-Use Trail ProjectSanta Clarita, Los Angeles County, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the paleontological analysis for the Railroad Avenue Multi-Use Trail Project in Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County. This project proposed the construction of a 1.5-mile mixed-use pathway for pedestrians and bicycles along the east side of Railroad Avenue from Oak Ridge Drive to Lyons Avenue. Based on the results of a fossil locality search through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and a review of geologic maps and relevant geological and paleontological literature, this analysis recommended the appropriate level of assessment that would be necessary for environmental compliance.

Weddington Street ProjectLos Angeles, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Analysis Memorandum for the 15353–15385 Weddington Street Project, which involved the demolition of the existing three-story apartment building and construction of a new five-story condominium complex with subterranean parking. The paleontological analysis documented the location and nature of paleontologically sensitive sediments and made recommendations to ensure project development did not adversely affect those resources.

Haven and Fourth Street Hotels and Restaurant ProjectRancho Cucamonga, California LSA is currently in the process of preparing technical analyses for the Haven and Fourth Street Hotels and Restaurant Project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed project includes the development of two five-story 115-room hotels and an approximately 6,000 square foot restaurant on a 7.18-acre site. Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Report.

La Pata Avenue 1.8-Mile Gap Closure and Camino del Rio Extension ProjectSan Juan Capistrano, California This project was a massive undertaking to extend La Pata Avenue and Camino del Rio in the City of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, and involved the removal of 14.8 million cubic yards of earth material. Dr. Rieboldt oversaw the paleontological monitoring program conducted by LSA for this project. She also made preliminary identifications of fossils recovered from the project and will prepare the final paleontological monitoring report at the conclusion of the monitoring program.

SR-710 North StudyLos Angeles County, California LSA is leading an environmental team to prepare an EIR/EIS for the State Route 710 North Study, which spans 23 cities and communities in Los Angeles County. This project, under the direction of Caltrans in cooperation with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, proposes to improve mobility and relieve congestion between State Route 2 and Interstates 5, 10, 210, and 605 in east/northeast Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley. Development of this project involves four alternatives: Freeway Tunnel, Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit, and Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management for which Dr. Rieboldt wrote the Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report and addressed public comments on the EIR/EIS.

NBCUniversal Studios G Lot Project Universal City, Los Angeles County, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan (PRMP) and the Final Mitigation Monitoring Report for the NBCUniversal G Lot Project. For the PRMP, Dr. Rieboldt reviewed the area geology, the applicable City and County mitigation requirements, and the project development plans in order to create an appropriate plan for monitoring excavation activities. This project involved substantial excavation into the middle Miocene

4


PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) (15.97 to 11.62 million years ago) Topanga Group and produced dozens of specimens of fossil leaves and bony fish, as well as a few whale specimens. As part of the mitigation monitoring report, Dr. Rieboldt documented project compliance with the applicable requirements and identified and described the fossils recovered. She also coordinated the curation of the recovered fossils into the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

NBCUniversal Studios Universal Hollywood Drive ProjectUniversal City and Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan (PRMP) for the NBCUniversal Studios Universal Hollywood Drive Project, located in the City of Los Angeles and Universal City, which is in unincorporated Los Angeles County. This project involved improving and widening of Universal Hollywood Drive and included excavation into Holocene to Late Pleistocene (less than 126,000 years ago) Young Alluvial Deposits and Middle Miocene (15.97 to 11.62 million years ago) Topanga Group. The PRMP outlined the best practices for paleontological monitoring.

Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension ProjectCity of Corona and Unincorporated Riverside County, California The Foothill Parkway Westerly Extension Project, located in the City of Corona and unincorporated Riverside County, involved construction of approximately 2 miles of roadway with associated structures and connector road improvements to accommodate existing and future traffic demands in that area. The project included excavation into paleontologically sensitive deposits of Holocene to Pleistocene Alluvial Deposits, the Paleocene Silverado Formation, and the Late Cretaceous Williams and Ladd Formations. Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan for this project, which outlined best practices for paleontological monitoring during project excavation, as well as procedures for preparing, curating, and documenting any recovered fossils.

Pio Pico Energy Center ProjectSan Diego County, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the Pio Pico Energy Center Project. This project involved the construction of a power plant for three General Electric natural gas-fired combustion turbine generators in an unincorporated area on Otay Mesa in San Diego County. Development of this project will include clearing and grading of the project area, construction of the power plant, and installation of the power plant as well as natural gas lines and electricity transmission lines, all within paleontologically sensitive sediments of the Late Oligocene (23.03–28.1 million years ago) Otay Formation. The Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan followed all applicable State, County, and California Energy Commission requirements and guidelines.

Vernola Marketplace Apartments Project: Phases A and BJurupa Valley, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Assessment for Phases A and B of the Vernola Marketplace Apartments Project in the City of Jurupa Valley in Riverside County. This project involves the development of 597 multifamily residential units on approximately 25.7 acres of land near the intersection of Interstate 15 and 68

th

Street. It includes excavation into Holocene through Early Pleistocene deposits, some of which are sensitive for paleontological resources. The paleontological assessment documented the location and nature of the sensitive sediments and made recommendations to ensure project development does not adversely impact those resources.

SR-60/Theodore Street Interchange ProjectMoreno Valley, California LSA is conducting environmental technical studies for air quality and biological, cultural, and paleontological resources for the State Route 60 (SR-60)/ Theodore Street Interchange Project in the City of Moreno Valley in

5


PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) Riverside County. The proposed project involves reconstruction of the local interchange at SR-60 and Theodore Street in order to reduce congestion, improve traffic flow, and accommodate forecasted traffic demands in and around Moreno Valley. Project development includes removal and replacement of the Theodore Street bridge over SR-60, auxiliary lanes along SR-60, and new entrance and exit ramps from SR-60 to Theodore Street. Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report for this project.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station ProjectSan Diego County, California As part of an on-call contract with SCE, Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Assessment for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Project, located on the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in San Diego County. This assessment provided a review of the 17 geologic units within the surrounding SONGS facilities and their paleontological sensitivity ratings. Based on the paleontological sensitivities of these 17 geologic units and potential construction methods, the assessment also provided recommendations for mitigating impacts to paleontological resources that may be encountered during development of any future projects at the SONGS facilities.

Central Region Landfills – Frank R. Bowerman Landfill Wetlands Basin, Phase VIIIC, and East Flank Landslide ProjectsOrange County, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Final Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Wetlands Basin, Phase VIIIC, and East Flank Landslide Projects. To date, LSA has collected over 100 fossil specimens from these combined projects, and the recovery of these specimens was completed without delay to the project schedule. The most notable specimens collected included several early Miocene (18–20 million years before present) whale fossils and leaves and molluscs from the Cretaceous (72–83 million years before present). As part of the mitigation monitoring report, Dr. Rieboldt documented project compliance with the applicable State and County requirements for paleontological resources. She also identified and described the scientific significance of the fossils recovered.

Newport Coastal Coverage Solution ProjectCrystal Cove State ParkOrange County, California The Newport Coastal Coverage Solution Project, located in Crystal Cove State Park in Orange County, involved installation of a building for communications equipment with associated access roads to improve safety communications in that area. The project included excavation into paleontologically sensitive deposits of the Middle Miocene Topanga Group and possibly Middle to Late Miocene Monterey Formation. Because this project was within the boundaries of a State Park, Dr. Rieboldt obtained the required permit for paleontological field work on State lands and prepared the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan, which outlined best practices for paleontological monitoring during project excavation, as well as procedures for preparing, curating, and documenting any recovered fossils.

Hidden Canyon ProjectOrange County, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Hidden Canyon Project. LSA collected specimens of sharks, rays, whales, and mollusks from the Early Miocene to Early Oligocene (15.97–33.9 Ma) Vaqueros Formation. As part of the mitigation monitoring report, Dr. Rieboldt documented project compliance with the applicable State and City of Irvine requirements for paleontological resources. She also identified and described the fossils recovered.

6


PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) Aldi Distribution Center Project Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Final Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Aldi Distribution Center Project in Moreno Valley in Riverside County. This project involved excavation into paleontologically sensitive Late Pleistocene deposits and produced specimens of horse (Equus), camel (Hemiauchenia) and giant ground sloth (Megalonyx jeffersonii or Nothrotheriops shastensis). For the final report, Dr. Rieboldt identified and described the recovered material and documented project compliance with the applicable State, City, and project-specific requirements for paleontological resources.

City of Menifee On-Call Cultural Resources Studies Peer Review Projects Menifee, California LSA is under contract with the City of Menifee in Riverside County to provide on-call peer review of cultural and paleontological resources documents prepared for project compliance with applicable federal, State, City, and project-specific requirements and guidelines for cultural and paleontological resources. These documents may include field survey reports, assessments, mitigation monitoring programs, and final mitigation reports. Dr. Rieboldt is conducting the peer review of all paleontological documents under this contract.

Ball Road Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain Improvements ProjectAnaheim, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Analysis Memorandum for the Ball Road Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drain Improvements Project in the City of Anaheim in Orange County. This project involved the replacement and upgrade of the sewer and storm drain facilities along Ball Road and into Carbon Creek, demolishing an abandoned railroad bridge. It includes excavation into Holocene to Late Pleistocene deposits, some of which were sensitive for paleontological resources. The paleontological analysis documented the location and nature of the sensitive sediments and made recommendations to ensure project development did not adversely impact those resources.

Howland’s Landing Well Project Santa Catalina Island, California As part of an on-call contract with SCE, Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Howland’s Landing Well Project on Santa Catalina Island in Los Angeles County. This emergency project involved drilling exploration wells to determine where fresh water could be reached and then drilling, constructing, and testing the final well, which would provide fresh water for the Howland’s Landing area. The project included excavation into Holocene to Late Pleistocene deposits and metamorphic rocks of the Late Cretaceous Catalina Schist, a part of the Franciscan Formation. Although Pleistocene sediments could have been present at depth and had the potential to contain scientifically important fossils, the excavation methods used for this project precluded the recovery of paleontological resources. The paleontological assessment documented the location and nature of the sensitive sediments and, based on the excavation methods, recommended that no paleontological mitigation was required for the project.

Sesi Property Landfill Closure ProjectSan Diego, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Sesi Property Landfill Closure Project. This project involved constructing a monolithic landfill cover with surface drainage facilities and other improvements for closure of landfilled auto-shredder waste on the Sesi property in the City of San Diego, San Diego County. Development of this project involved excavation into the paleontologically sensitive Otay and Lindavista Formations and therefore, required full-time monitoring during ground-disturbing activities in native deposits.

7


PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) Morse Street Townhomes ProjectOceanside, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Assessment for the Morse Street Townhomes Project. This project involved the development of 38 townhomes on a 2.3-acre parcel of land near the intersection of Morse Street and the Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Oceanside in San Diego County. Development of this project included clearing and grading to prepare the project area, construction of the various buildings, and the installation of utilities.

Stratford Ranch Residential ProjectPerris, California

Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Stratford Ranch Residential Project in the City of Perris in Riverside County. The project included a new residential community with 400 lots and a 15-acre Stockpile Plan on approximately 80 acres in northeastern Perris. Project development involved clearing and grading to prepare the project area, construction of a new road within the area, and installation of on-site storm drains, new water service, new sewer lines, new electric service, new natural gas lines, and a new telecommunication infrastructure system to serve the planned residential uses.

34202 Del Obispo Street ProjectDana Point, California LSA conducted environmental technical studies for the 34202 Del Obispo Street Project in the City of Dana Point in Orange County. This mixed-use project involves the development of a residential community, commercial space, and a small amount of parkland/open space. Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Assessment for this project.

Spieker Continuing Care Retirement Community ProjectSan Juan Capistrano, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Assessment as one of several environmental technical studies LSA conducted for the Spieker Continuing Care Retirement Community Project in the City of San Juan Capistrano in Orange County. This project involved the development of a Continuing Care Retirement Community designed for residents over the age of 60 years and included the construction of independent living residences, community buildings, and a health care center.

Kaiser Bellflower East Center Demolition ProjectLos Angeles County, California The proposed project involves demolition of the existing Administration Building and East Center Wing of the Kaiser Bellflower Medical Center and remodeling of the exterior and lobby of the West Wing of the Medical Center. Excavation activities associated with this project are anticipated to reach 15–20 feet below ground surface. Dr. Rieboldt wrote the Paleontological Resources Memorandum and the Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program for this project.

Vancouver Street Sewer Extension ProjectCarlsbad, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the Vancouver Street Sewer Extension Project. This project involved the extension of an existing sewer line from Vancouver Street to Via de Canto through Hidden Canyon Community Park in the City of Carlsbad in San Diego County. Development of this project included traditional excavation, as well as horizontal directional drilling, for the installation of the sewer line segments.

8


PROJECT EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) Durfee Avenue Grade Separation ProjectPico Rivera, California LSA conducted environmental technical studies for the Durfee Avenue Grade Separation Project in the City of Pico Rivera in Los Angeles County. The project proposed to lower Durfee Avenue below the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks to improve safety for vehicular, rail, and pedestrian traffic along Durfee Avenue and nearby streets and the railroad right-of-way. Project development included lowering Durfee Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and Stephens Street; raising the UPRR tracks; and relocating various wet and dry utilities. Following through on due diligence for the client, Dr. Rieboldt prepared the paleontological assessment for this project.

SR-94/SR-125 Interchange Branch Connector ProjectSan Diego County, California LSA conducted cultural and paleontological resources assessments for the State Route 94/State Route 125 (SR-94/SR-125) Interchange Branch Connector Project in San Diego County. The project involved the construction of a freeway-to-freeway connector to allow direct south-to-east movement for the SR-94/SR-125 interchange in order to improve regional circulation and reduce traffic on local streets in the Cities of La Mesa and Lemon Grove, and in the unincorporated community of Spring Valley. Project development included construction of a freeway connector between southbound SR-125 and eastbound SR-94, auxiliary lanes on those freeways, and new noise barriers and retaining walls, as well as modifications to existing structures. Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report for this project.

Surfside Inn Pedestrian Overcrossing ProjectDana Point, California LSA conducted cultural and paleontological resources assessments for the Surfside Inn Pedestrian Overcrossing Project in the City of Dana Point in Orange County. The project involved replacement and rehabilitation of the pedestrian overcrossing across the Pacific Coast Highway and Metrolink right-of-way from the Capistrano Surfside Inn to Doheny State Beach. Dr. Rieboldt prepared the paleontological resources assessment.

Adelanto Solar ProjectSan Bernardino County, California Dr. Rieboldt prepared a paleontological resources analysis report for the Adelanto Solar Project in San Bernardino County. This report included a summary of the geology and potential paleontological resources of the project area, results from a paleontological locality search through the San Bernardino County Museum, and recommendations for mitigating potential impacts to paleontological resources.

North Star Solar ProjectFresno, California LSA conducted a paleontological resources assessment for the proposed North Star Solar Switching Station and Generation Tie Line (Gen Tie) Project in Fresno County. The purpose of this project is to generate and transmit renewable solar electricity from proven technology at a competitive cost, with low environmental impact, and deliver it to market as soon as possible. The project consists of an approximately 1.5 mile-long gen tie line that will tie into a new 115-kilovolt switching station, an expansion of the existing PG&E Mendota substation. Project construction work will involve location preparation, foundation installation, power pole placement, generation line installation, and erection and connection of the gen tie line and switching station equipment. Dr. Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Resources Assessment for this project.

9

SARAH RIEBOLDT, PH.D. ASSOCIATE / PALEONTOLOGIST

PUBLICATIONSElrick, M., S. Rieboldt, M. Saltzman, and R.M. McKay

2011 Oxygen-isotope trends and seawater temperature changes across the Late Cambrian Steptoean positive isotope excursion (SPICE event). Geology 39(10): 987-990.

Lipps, J.H., and S.E. Rieboldt 2005 Habitats and taphonomy of life on Europa. Icarus 177:515-527.

Parham, J.F., and S.E. Rieboldt 2005 Contia tenuis (Sharp-tailed snake): Reproduction. Natural History Note. Herpetological Review 36(4):456.

SELECTED REPORTSMount Diablo State Park Paleontological Resources Inventory and Management Recommendations. Prepared for the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Bay Area District. December 2002.

Paleontological Resources Assessment for Bayside Covenant Church, Sierra College Boulevard and Cavitt-Stallman Road, City of Roseville, Placer County, California. Prepared for Bayside Covenant Church. June 2002.

Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Riverbend Park Project, Lompoc, California. Prepared for the City of Lompoc. January 2002.

Recommendations for Compliance with Regulatory Requirements and Mitigation Measures for Paleontological Resources for the Mountain Park Community Development Project. Prepared for the Irvine Company. November 2001.

Paleontological Resources Assessment and Mitigation Measures for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District 17-Mile Interceptor Project, Sacramento and Yolo Counties, California. (Co-authored with Jere Lipps, Ph.D.) Prepared for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District on behalf of Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. October 2001.

Scope of Work for Paleontological Investigation Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report for I-680 Northbound Sunol Grade Project. Prepared for Caltrans and Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. August 2001.

PRESENTATIONSRECS (Research Experience in Carbon Sequestration) Workshop, (Birmingham, Alabama). June 6, 2011.

Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, (Denver, Colorado), “Taphonomy of Jupiter’s Icy Moon Europa.” November 7–10, 2004.

Bioastronomy Meeting: Habitable Worlds, (Reykjavik, Iceland), “Life, Past and Present, on Jupiter’s Icy Moon, Europa.” July 12–16, 2004.

35th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (Houston, Texas), “Geosciences at Jupiter’s Icy Moons: The Midas Touch.” March 16, 2004.

Seventh Field Conference of the International Subcommission on Cambrian Stratigraphy: The Cambrian System of South China, (Guiyang, China), “Cambrian Inarticulate Brachiopods from Nevada and Texas.” August 2001.

10

SARAH RIEBOLDT, PH.D. ASSOCIATE / PALEONTOLOGIST

PRESENTATIONS (CONTINUED)Fourth International Brachiopod Congress (London, England), “Can Oxygen Isotopes from Inarticulate Brachiopods

Resolve the Causes of Faunal Turnovers in the Cambrian?” July 10–14, 2000.

Geological Society of America Cordilleran Section Meeting, (Berkeley, California), “Inarticulate Brachiopods from the Pioche Formation (Lower and Middle Cambrian), Nevada and their Relation to the Extinction of the Olenellida.” June 2–4, 1999.

11

Documents

PALEONTOLOGICAL IDEN TIFICATION REPORT AND PALEONTOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT · 2019-07-03 · PALEONTOLOGICAL IDEN TIFICATION REPORT AND PALEONTOLOGICAL EVALUATION REPORT STATE ROUTE