The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCITY_OF_IRVINE_MEA_MAP_ATLASS. Map Atlas i Prepared For City of Irvine Community Development Department . Prepared By Community Planning Services El Toro, Califbrnia February 1986 • I IV Introduction This Map Attas is intended for use in conjunction with the AMA User's Guide. The •Atlas .;; includes both contraint and data maps covering the City's planning area. ' provide environmental resource and constraint information on thirteen topics: Data maps provide additional environmental information for use by the- City.=°.Tn'some-'.:...`'-;, . . cases; the data maps were used to model the information depicted on the envir6nmental,s constrait maps. The maps included in this Atlas are reproduced at a scale of 1" a 6000.' 'Eacii''maps assigned an alpha numeric code depending upon its type.' The orginal MEA maps were drawn on clear"accetate at a scale of 1:24:000 (1" = 2000'). These maps are on file with the the Environmental Services Division of the Community Development Department, and are available for reference. f • 6 • MAP INDEX B-1 Topographic Base.Map 0-1 Acetate Overlay Constraint Maps.,,,` C-1 Geologip Hazards C-2 Flood/Dam Inundation_ Hazards C-3- Fire Hazards C-4 Agricultural Capability C-5 Water Resources. C-6 Biotic Resources C-7 Sand and Gravel Resources C-8 Historical Resources C-9 Archaeological Resources C40 Paleontological Resources- C-11 Aircraft Noise and Crash Hazards C-12 Roadway and Railroad Noise C-13 Special Districts Data Mans D-1 Landform D-2 Slope Zones D-3 Soils D-4 Agricultural Preserves D-5 Vegetation D-6 Environmental Documents Index D-7 Archaeological Documents Index D-8 Statistical Areas & Residential Phasing D-9 ITAP Zones D-10 Census Areas D-11 IRWD Token Zones IRVIRR IMA Ui `I LO .I 3�-a Lif IT �FHF s- ENTER t� / Gl '� r 1 �4 r v i n e Topographic Base M E A B-1 � l � TMOUGO ON TOFEItA A RAN A FE eWUL V� �r 1U 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feat Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence • CONSTRAINT MAPS ,a, • L7� i • MAP NUMBER: MAP TITLE: MAP TYPE: DATE PREPARED: LAST UPDATE: C-1 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS CONSTRAINT JULY 12,1985 NONE Seismic Response Areatl) Code Interpretation 1 Seismic Response Area (SRA) 1 2 Seismic Response Area (SRA) 2 3 Seismic Response Area (SRA) 3 4 Seismic Response Area (SRA) 4 5 Seismic Response Area (SRA) 5 1 See Appendix A for expanded code interpretation V-10, vl---, U-1, V' dk' I �yo 'Tic '/P cL I ---k v -4 p �W ®R 11 10- A-JIM r:2r 41. IV RKY"I", V I r v i n e Geologic Hazards AR 1U A C-1 >40 t/V elf-, 12. 'NIC/ 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet — Irvine Corporate Limits ' " ' Sphere of Influence P.p-d: My 12.1W • MAP NUMBER: C-2 MAP TITLE: FLOOD/DAM INUNDATION HAZARDS MAP TYPE: CONSTRAINT. DATE PREPARED: MAY 15, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Floodplain Zones - 1st digit Code Interpretation 1xx Area of Special Flood Hazard (100 Year Floodplain) 2xx Area of Special Flood Hazard (100 Year Floodplain) - County and City maps 3xx Area of Special Flood Hazard (100 Year Floodplain) - County map only(2) 4xx . Area of Special Flood Hazard (100 Year Floodplain) - City map only(2) 5xx Floodway 6xx Floodway Fringe. 9xx- Not within an area of Special Flood Hazard Dam Inundation Areas - 2nd and 3rd digits Code- Interpretation x01 Rattlesnake Reservoir x02 Santiago Reservoir x03 Villa Park Reservoir x04 San Joaquin Reservoir x05 Sand Canyon Reservoir x06 Syphon Canyon Dam x07 Laguna Dam . x10 Rattlesnake and Santiago Reservoirs x12 Santiago and San Joaquin Reservoirs x13 Santiago and Sand Canyon Reservoirs x14 Santiago and Sand Canyon Reservoirs. x20 Rattlesnake, Santiago, and Villa Park Reservoirs x21 Santiago and Villa Park Reservoirs and Syphon Canyon Dam x22 Santiago, Villa Park, and San Joaquin Reservoirs x99 Not within Dam Inundation area i Codes 3xx and 4xx refer to areas plotted -differently by Federal Insurance Administration on City and County Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 2 Codes 3xx and 4xx refer to areas plotted differently by Federal Insurance Administration on City and County Flood Insurance Rate Maps. I r v i n e M E A C - 2 Flood/Dam Inundation Hazards P¢p—d May 15,1985 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence • i 1• MAP TITLE: FIRE HAZARDS MAP TYPE: CONSTRAINT DATE PREPARED: MARCH 5, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Fire Hazard Severi - 1st digit Code Interpretation Ix None/low 2x Moderate 3x High 4x Extreme 9x Not Rated - Urban, fieldcrop, or orchard . Fire Frequency (Since 1910) - 2nd digit Code Interpretation xl One Fire x2 Two Fires x3 Three Fires x9 No Known Fires M E A C - 3 Fire Hazards Prepared: M-h5,1985 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence • MAP NUMBER: MAP TITLE: MAP TYPE: DATE PREPARED: LAST UPDATE: C-4 AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CONSTRAINT AUGUST 3, 1985 . NONE Class of Soils(') Code Interpretation 1 Class I Soils 2 Class H Soils 3 Class.HI & IV Soils 5 Other than Class I thru7IV Soils 9 Water 1 See Appendix A for expanded code interpretation i r v i n e M E A C - 4 Agricultural Capability 0 2000 4000 6000 6000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence • i MAP NUMBER: C-5 MAP T=: WATER RESOURCES MAP TYPE: . CONSTRAINT DATE PREPARED: TUNE 12, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Groundwater Recharge Potential Code Interpretation lkx Restricted Recharge 2xx Partially Restricted Recharge: To Shallow Aquifers 3xx Partially Restricted Recharge to Deep Aquifers 4xx Unrestricted Recharge 9xx Not in Groundwater Basin Master Plans of Drainage Code Interpretation x01 Irvine Ranch - Valencia x05 Irvine Ranch - Bryan x06 University Park x07 Irvine Industrial x15 Laguna Canyon x16 Central Irvine Ranch x19 East Irvine x99 Not Included in Master Plan (State Property) t8ytN8 IR 7- ..� f-.-^'�� ;+ \� J .':•{�\�;h,/:,�, f ,,\ra�`.� •;^. ,' i" .1„};'Tf�d1�"."v'�, �.''aK�' 1- 1 ,� •,p�'� f: ( �J if ` y • '�M�"�' • ��i. It Jlf�t l� \ �. SI NI N.l-..y _ �..5��`�1� �'i',`.i!A Yli ' _f A./>' IV `T_rf\'t' z �l i� '•t1,-r'� �4' 'L C- .C:!'r".1`'. ''•' :tL.t�!i�� 11: �w�r r. %e,A:kF��i}fir _7e�i�h"•.'�'�7%�:✓. .. ,'�f•.v'tt�ts "i •, 1,. IV%i' i._. ,� ca : ? I e A 41�, / til •;'3'1'" \ 5:� _ '"�% _ -.a. i�,'�\'`�ra, , F{ } \L Ya SF t.. ,��JJ.I�.(;-;•} ti �y,,: `�,J a "�'u�f} �1,4 °•'F�J1k�`4 � -= -r�j;� !�'4��- ' p-` � . ;��i., ; �Yi:.� � _. • V , . S`i �•`Sj� �5.,,�; � a11011 -;, V� /' o !" *�' � ��' y- fi �,-� {p17 1r i�4 e z8� •' f _l'• x \'- '�� Y�� x4 �2'" M !% 3 , � �'" �� 1 1': i i .�� i' •I\__ E � , `, ; .h��h _A tYYY .�;• ' R- � � �i,,�' J�i�£ J" o: ti'"!� `-it�s�f ,,f"; � k=:TP rr 4�" .� - '.' ` \ •�t��; 5 �,�' . i"�wk %?'h` �_, \^�; j)�:� - i��/ . �i b�" ie�� •;(��1 l �-a_„j 7 %� 1 ; 'TC i 1 p i } ._ j �c:iJ,' ,... , .. I,t ✓�'�� " :��i�'ll~ a l; i , ��t�'.. \._ '" ° '-' -- --r a,J``` f �:\' `��...-s-1-f".p,,.:..',«a:rt •.�;!j?�,+,�; s' r_ `` f6.3�� LL�i.1c, !. S �� j,,7p t; fd,. w°-,_—_---L ., �: \� ~• �`! `'l�( �, �� ,_..�. ; 13 P:�- �t..E—. _ .1, ��\�{\1 z i, \i.�,_,...... 9/\ ��y g fib`; I>,`j! l 41!I, a3 „-•� �`, ` \ t _i�`u3"rjlr,� �I\ ' �;\ ,ys ✓, �.y�✓9�' � J� �' +� rlr i4xa iS�ry7 111 �iil \' od{E'vum4 -__\ f;J!Y 13�tJ A_055I `, . ji �+-- = e ' ti.,. —` .J?U.it.'.'�F a�J. -- ��1 �I:tc!tp'n.! 1��',��7 \ ••,.•T�'.�}I�\ �—i ,t ,ra_cl-i, `:ASi3ll=-- I3Iif7:PON, ._:•�:-- ��—..: `+y<d•n �.c \ _ - .,' _ �s +\� ,. io ATIFTk, v, \ \ rz\ �IYJdr �lll i ?USTIN LTA I •1�+��1 ^7T'f F 2071 tU i No •\ ` I '�\'��$�\_i . /r.` -\ _�._yu[,�pd��n a yr } \ — r di MCA � Ci ' \ - /sue'•: Y+. +\ -iP C i00N TOVEKA BAN \ i. 'ice ` I w�uSt�ifl` .y3 �. AM-F44. .{e,'-3��1 •.tom, .p�' ''F r� 7_1LJL. IL,.4, •'yk� 1 ILI{f� ENTE0.i�3. sGi,C_3t k —�= a L.; •;'�.. ..- � � /mod.-• �, � -' � �� , _=ti' �;,Y. t ` �� • 1, ` ..3 F } _ `" ', � /�'�Gt� �Z "`;y�`,jj°� ��.�„ ' �x �j — .ice /C-ACV:,�� c' I r v i n e I Water Resources P.p-d: Tune 12,1995 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence i u MAP NUMBER: MAP TITLE: MAP TYPE: C-6 BIOTIC RESOURCES CONSTRAINT DATE PREPARED: DECEMBER 16, 1984 LAST UPDATE: JANUARY 30, 1986 Biotic Sensitivity(1) Code. Area Name 01 Limestone Canyon 02 Bee & Round Canyons 03 The Sinks 04 - Borrego Canyon 05 Santiago Canyon 06 San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh 07 Sand Canyon Wash 08 San -Diego -Creek' 09 Bonita Reservoir 10 Sand Canyon Reservoir 11 Sand Canyon Reservoir Rare Plant Habitat 12 Shady Canyon Rare Plant Habitat 13 Shady Canyon 14 Bommer Canyon 15 Limestone -Canyon -buffer 16 Bee & Round Canyon buffers -1.7. Aqua Chinon Wash 18 Borrego Canyon buffer 19 Rattlesnake Reservoir 20 Siphon.Reservoir 21 Lambert Reservoir 22 San Diego Creek -Downstream Reach 23 Woodbridge Lakes 24 San Diego Creek buffer 25 San Diego Creek = Irvine Center Reach 26 Sand Canyon Wash buffer 27 Laguna Reservoir 28 Bonita Reservoir buffer 29 Sand Canyon Reservoir'buffer 30 William R. Mason, Regional Park Lakes 31 Shady and Bommer Canyon buffers 32 - Shady Canyon tributary 33 Eucalyptus windrows 34 Sand Canyon Oak trees 35 Canada Geese Foraging Area(2) Sensitivity High High High High .High High High High High, High High High High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High 1 See Technical Supplement # 2: Biotic Resources Element for additional information:regarding each of these areas. 2 This area has been designated based upon preliminary results of a study currently.underway. The designation and boundaries of the area are subject to change. I r v i n e M E A C - 6 Biotic Resources 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence htp-d• D—.b6 ,16, 1984 Updated. January 21, 1986 C7 MAP NUMBER: C-7 MAP TITLE: SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES MAP TYPE: CONSTRAINT DATE PREPARED: SEPTEMBER 4, 1985 _ LAST UPDATE: NONE Code Interpretation 0 - Not Resource Area 1 Potential. Resources 2 - Known Resources to 1 J Sand And Gravel Resources M E A C - 7 Sand and Gravel Resources 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits Sphere of Influence P,p=d Sq—ber4, 1985 i 0 MAP .NUMBER: C-8 MAP TITLE: HISTORICAL RESOURCES MAP TYPE: CONSTRAINT DATE PREPARED: AUGUST 12, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Historical Resources Code Resource Title Tyne Status 01 High -line Canal Structure 02 Irvine Ranch Headquarters & Employee Housing Structure _Existing Existing 03 Irvine Community Church Structure Existing 04 Irvine's First Public School Structure Removed 05 Irvine Bean Warehouse Structure Existing 06 East Irvine Garage & Service Station Structure Existing 07 A.T. & SY Railway Station Structure Removed 08 Irvine General Store Structure Existing 09 - Sand Canyon Oaks/Stage Coach Route Place N/A 10 Irvine - Laguna Stage Coach Stop Structure Removed 11 Bommer Canyon Cattle Camp Structures. Existing . 12 Urbanus Square (Old Buffalo Ranch) Structures Existing 13 Portola Campsite at Tomato Springs Place N/A 14 Route of Portola Expedition Place N/A 15 Tomato Springs Bandit Place N/A 16 Walnut Packing House Structure Removed 17 Francis Packing House. Structure Removed 18 Route of El Camino Real - "The.Kings Highway" Place N/A 19 "Swamp of the Frogs" Place N/A 20 Michelson Vacuum Tube Experiments Place N/A 21 Barton's Mound Place .. N/A 22 Don Jose Sepulveda's First Adobe Structure Removed 23 Rancho Headquarters Structure Existing _ 99 Remainder of Planning Area N/A N/A Note: Circles on map represent approximate site locations. I r v i n e M E A C - 8 Historical Resources 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence Prepared. August 12,1995 • i 0 MAP NUMBER: C-9 MAP TITLE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, MAP TYPE: CONSTRAINT DATE PREPARED: ' JUNE.11, 1985. LAST UPDATE: NONE' THIS MAP CONTAINS SENSITIVE SITE LOCATION INFORMATION. IT IS ON FILE WITH THE. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW BY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS. Survey Status Code Interpretation 0 Area Not Surveyed 1 Area Previously Surveyed Archaeological Sites Code Interpretation Note: Map codes correspond to recorded site numbers (ORA-XXXX). -See Technical Supplement 4: Archaeological Resource Element for a description and status of each site. MAP NUMBER: C-10 MAP TITLE: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES MAP TYPE: CONSTRAINT DATE PREPARED: JANUARY 4, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Sensitivity Zones - Large single digit Code Interpretation 0 - None 1 Low Sensitivity 2 Moderate Sensitivity 3 High Sensitivity Site Localities - Smaller 3 di itg code Recorded Recorded Recorded Code Locality # Code Locality # Code Locality 001 LACM 6666 026 UCLA 415 051 USES 509 002 USGS 106 027 UCRIYP 7898 052 USES 510 003 USGS 107 028 LC 613.1 053 USGS 512 004 USGS 11.1 029 JDC-BR-2 054 LC A535 005 USGS 112 030 JDC-BR-3 055 USGS 511 006 USGS 136 031 JDC-BR-4 056 NHF.54 007 USGS 137 032 JDC-BR-7 057 NHF 55 008 USGS -114B 033 UCLA 282 058 NHF 121 009 USGS 135 034 UCLA 413 059 LC A538 010 JDC-HC-6 035 LACM 4171 060 UCLA(CIT) 374 011 JDC-HC-1 036 RR 166 061 LACM 1067 012 JDC-HC-2 037 RR 161 062 LACM 3407 013 JDC-HC-3 038 LC 2337 063 LCAM 3877 014 JDC-HC-4 039 USGS 138 064 LACM 3980 015 JDC-HC-5. 040 USGS 192 065 LCAM 3866 016 JDC-BR-1 041 USGS 1 066 USGS'504 017 JDC-BR-6 042 USGS 193 067 LACM 1068 018 -JDC-BR-8 •043 UCLA 1534- 068 LACM 1069 019 JDC-BR-9 044 LACM(CIT) 449 069 LACM 3977 020 RR 153 045 LC A537 070 LACM 3978 021 RR 154 046 USGS 503' 071 LACM 3986 022 RR 155 041 USGS 505 072 NHF 96 023 RR 156 048 USGS 506 073 NHF 128 024 USGS 44 049 USGS 507 074 USGS 534 025 UCLA 414 050 USGS 508 075 RR 622 • (See Technical Supplement 5: Paleontological Resource Element fora description of each site.) tRYtNR k rusnri LTA i S IN 'S•L' r ((,>p��^^ `��p%� I r v i n e Paleontologic Resources A4 T A C-10 Pmpar.d:7anuwy4,1985 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits Sphere of Influence 1, & S.M. M OP. Fnbcunrf 1986 MAP NUMBER: C-11 MAP TITLE: AIRCRAFT NOISE AND CRASH HAZARDS MAP TYPE: CONSTRAINT' DATE PREPARED: AUGUST 10, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Airport Crash Hazard Areas - 1st.digit Code Interpretation . Ox Not in Hazard Area Ix Local Aircraft Traffic Zone 2x Accident Potential Zone 2 3x Accident Potential Zone 1 4x Airport Clear Zone Noise Impacted Areas - 2nd digit (Based upon existing noise. levels) Code Interpretation x0 Noise less than 60 CNEL x1 Aircraft Noise Impacted Area (60 to 65 CNEL) x2 Aircraft Noise Impacted Area (65 to 70, CNEL) x3 Aircraft Noise Impacted Area (70 to 75 CNEL) x4 Aircraft Noise Impacted Area (75 to 80 CNEL) x5 Aircraft Noise Impacted Area(>80 CNEL) 0 I r v i n e M E A C - I I Aircraft Noise Crash Hazards and 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits Sphere of Influence Pmpamd• August 10, 1985 As Of: MAP NUMBER: C-12 MAP TITLE: ROADWAY AND RAILROAD NOISE MAP TYPE: CONSTRAINT DATE PREPARED: DECEMBER 5, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Roadway and/or Railroad Noise Code Interpretation ; 1 Combined Noise Levels < 60 CNEL' 2 Combined Noise Levels > 60 CNEL or not plotted I 0 I r v i n e M E A C-12 Roadway, and Railroad Noise P.p—d.D—be,5,1985 0 2000 400D 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence • MAP NUMBER: C-13 MAP TITLE: SPECIAL. DISTRICTS (Hillside, Coastal, AQMD) MAP TYPE: CONSTRAINT DATE PREPARED: AUGUST 22, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Hillside Overlay- District - 1st digit Code Interpretation Oxxx Not within Hillside Overlay District 1xxx Within Hillside Overlay -District i Code Interpretation xOxx Not within Coastal Zone- x1xx Within Coastal Zone Coastal Zone - 2nd-digit South Coast AQMD Subbasins - 3rd & 4.th .dig Code Interpretation xx19 Subbasin 19 xx20 Subbasin 20 • I r v i n e M E A C-13 Special Districts 0 2000 4000 6000 6000 Feat Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence Pmp=d. Au8-22,1985 r- DATA. MAPS' • MAP NUMBER: D-1 MAP TITLE: LANDFORM MAP TYPE: I DATA DATE PREPARED: MARCH 21, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE' Landform-Type(1) Code Interpretation 01 Lake 02 .-Reservoir 03 Coastal Lagoon/Estuary . 04 Depression 05 Delta .06 - Beach 07 Dune 08 Cliffs 09 Gulley 10 Floodplain 11 Upland Valley 12 Marine Terrace Bench 13 Marine Terrace Sideslope 14 Alluvial Fan 15 Alluvial Terrace Bench - 16 Alluvial Terrace Sideslope 17 Alluvial Plain 18 Landslide 19 Rock Outcrop 20 Mountain Ridge Top 21- Mountain Sideslope 22 Hilltop 23 Hill/sideslope - 24 Not used 25 Man-made/altered i See Appendix for expanded code interpretations. I r v i n e M E A D-1 x Landform Pmpamd: Much 21, 1985 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits '' Sphere of Influence • to ►i . ' ►t lul-0 MAP TIME: D-2 SLOPE ZONES MAP TYPE: I . CONSTRAINT DATE PREPARED: JUKE 26, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Percent of Sloped) Code Interpretation 1 0 -.5% 2 5 - 10% 3 10 - 15%- 4 -15- 20% 5 20.- 25% 6 25 - 30% 7 , > 30% 9 Urban/Regraded i See Appendix for expanded code interpretations. I r v i n e M E A D-2 x Slope Zones P.p—d:5um36,1985 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence 0 0.- MAPNUMBER: D-3 MAP TITLE: SOILS MAP TYPE: . DATA DATE PREPARED: JUNE 2, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Code Interpretation Soil TypescW. 100 Alo clay, 9 to 15 percent. slopes 101 Alo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes 102 Alo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes 103 Alo variant clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes 104 Alo variant clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes 105 Alo variant clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes 106 Anaheim loam, 1S to 30 percent slopes 107 Anaheim- loam, 30 to 50 percent. slopes 108 Anaheim clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 109 Anaheim clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes 110 Anaheim clay loam, 50 to 75 percent slopes 111 Balcom clay loam; 9 to 15 percent slope 112 Balcom clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 113 Balcom clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes 114 Balcom-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 126 Bosanko clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes 127 Bosanko clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes 128 Bosanko clay, 30 to 50, percent slopes 129 Bosanko-Balcom complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 130 Bosanko-Balcom complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes 131 Botella loam, 2. to 9 percent slopes 132 Botella clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 133 Botella clay loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes 134 Calleguas clay loam, 50 to 75 percent slopes 135 Capistrano sandy loam, 2 to 9.percent slopes 136 Capistrano sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes 137 Chesterton loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes 138 Chesterton loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 139 Chino silty clay loam 140 Chino silty clay loam, drained 141 Cieneba sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 1 See Appendix for expanded code interpretations. • Soils (Cont) Code Interpretation 142 Cieneba- sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent slopes, eroded 145 Cieneba-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes -146 Corralitos loamy sand 147 Corralitos loamy sand, moderately fine substratum 148 Cropley clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes 149 Cropley clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes, 154 Gabino gravelly clay loam; 15 ',to 50 percent slopes 161 Marina loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 162 Marina loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes 163 Metz loamy sand 164 Metz loamy sand, moderately fine substratum 165 Mocho sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 166 . Mocho loam; 0 to 2 percent -slopes 167 . Mocho loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 172 Myford sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 173 Myford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 174 Myford sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, eroded 175 Myford sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes 176 - Myford sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 177 Myford sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes-, eroded 178 Myford sandy loam, thick surface, 0 to 2 percent slopes 179 Myford sandy loam, thick surface,.2 to 9 percent slopes 182 Omni silt loam, drained 1-83 Omni clay -184 Omni clay, drained 184 Pits 191 Riverwash 192 Rock outcrop-Cieneba complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes 193 San Andreas sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 194 San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 195 San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 196 San Emigdio fine sandy loam,' moderately fine substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes 199 Soper loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 200 Soper loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes 201 Soper gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 202 Soper gravely loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes 203 Soper cobbly loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes 205 Sorrento sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 206 Sorrento loam, fl to 2 percent slopes 207 Sorrento loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes 208 Sorrento clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 209 Sorrento clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes" 210 Thapto-Histic Rluvaquents 211 Title flats 221 Yorba gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes- • 222 Yorba gravelly sandy loam, 9 15 percent slopes 223 Yorba gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Soils (Cont) Code Interpretation 224 Yorba cobbly sandy- loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes 225 Yorba cobbly sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded 998 Water a, 0 / X I r v i n e Soils M E A D-3 Pmp=&J-2,1985 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence • MAP NUMBER: D-4 MAP TITLE: AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES MAP TYPE: DATA DATE PREPARED: DULY 11, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Preserve Contract Status = 1st and 2nd digits Code. Interpretation 00 Not Under Contract 88 Contract Expires in 1988 89 Contract Expires in 1989 90 Contract Expires in 1990 91 Contract Expires in.1991 94 -Contract Expires in 1994 99 No Contract Expiration Date' Set NOTE: Some preserve areas extend beyond the boundaries of the &MA study area. i 0, MAP NUMBER: MAP TITLE: MAP TYPE: Im VEGETATION DATA DATE PREPARED: JULY' 29, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Vegetation Typescl)' Code Interpretation_ 010 Grassland 020 Coastal Sage Scrub 021 'Coastal Sage. Scrub -Sage 022 Coastal Sage Scrub -Mixed 030 Chaparral " 031 , Chamise Chaparral 032 Mixed Chaparral 040 Oak Savannah 050' Oak Woodland/Forest 051 Oak Woodland 052 Oak Forest 060 Riparian Woodland/Forest . 061 Riparian Woodland 062 Riparian Forest 070 Conifer Woodland/Forest (Not Used). 071 Conifer Woodland (Not Used) 071 Conifer Forest (Not Used) 080 Marsh 081 Saltwater Marsh 082 Freshwater Marsh. 090 Barren 100 Agriculture 101 Orchard 102 Fieldcrop 103 Windrow 104 Sand Canyon Oaks 110 Urban/Cultural Altered 120 Water 1 See.Appendix for expanded code interpretations. I r v i n e M E A D - 5 X Vegetation P.P-,:7uly 11, 1985 r ■yE _-Nov— w \ 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits Sphere of Influence • i MAP NUMBER: " D-6 MAP TITLE. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS INDEX, MAP TYPE: DATA DATE PREPARED: SEPTEMBER 5, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Major Environmental Documents Lend IS - Initial Study ER - Environmental Impact Report EA - Environmental Assessment MEA' - Master Environmental Assessment ES - Environmental Impact Study Type Code Document Project Title, - EA/MEA General Plan Amendment # 40) - EA/MEA IRWD Master Environmental Assessmentci) - MEA Orange County Master Environmental Assessment(2) 001 ER . Bee and Round Canyon Landfill 002 ER Irvine Lake Pipeline and Treatment Facility 003 ER Foothill Transportation Corridor. 004 ER Foothill Transportation Corridor ER Bee and Round Canyon Landfill 005 ER North -Irvine Precise Land Use Plan ER IRWD Improvement District 75-1 006 EA Irvine Blvd. Widening. 007 ER North Irvine Precise Land Use Plan 008 ER Northwood Parcels 2 & 3 .000 ER Saddleback College Site Selection ER IRWD Improvement District 75-1 ER North Irvine Precise Land Use Plan 010 ER Saddleback College Site Selection ER North Irvine Precise Land Use Plan Oil ER North Irvine Precise Land Use Plan, ER Northwood Parcel 2 and 3 • 1 This document encompasses the entire MEA study area and, therefore, has not been individually coded. 2 This document includes the city's entire northern sphere of influence and, therefore, has not been individually coded. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS INDEX (Cont.) Type Code Document Project Title 012 ER Northwood Parcel 4 ER Saddleback College Site Selection . ER North IrvinePrecise Land Use Plan . 013 ER Saddleback College Site Selection 014 EA Myford/I 5 Interchange Improvements 015 EA - Yale Avenue Bicycle Overcrossing EA . Yale Avenue Vehicular Overcrossing 016 EA Jeffrey Road Interchange Improvements 017 IS " Sand Canyon Business & Industrial Center 018 ER IIC-East Zoning 019 ER IIC-East Phase IV 020 ER IIC-East Phase III ER IIC-East Zoning 021 IS IIC-East Phase II ER IIC-East Zoning 022 ER Irvine Technology Center ER IIC-East Zoning 023 ER IIC-East Phase I ER IIC-East Zoning 024 IS Irvine Auto Center ER IIC-East Zoning 025 ES Alton Pkwy & ICD Interchange-Irnprovements. 026 - ER Saddleback College Site Selection ER . Walnut Village General Plan Amend. - 027 ER - Walnut Village General PlanAmend. 028 ER Walnut Avenue Extension 029 ER Eastern Corridor Trans. Corridor 030 ER Village of Valley View 031 ER Heritage Park Stadium 032 ER East Irvine Historical District 033 ER AT& SF Railroad Lowering Project 034 ES Moulton Parkway/ICD Realignment 035 ER Home Improvement Center " ER Eastern Corridor Trans. Corridor ER Village of Valley View 036 ER Village of Valley View ER North Irvine Precise Land Use Plan 037 BR Yale Avenue%AT&SF Railroad Overcrossing 038 ER Smoketree Townhomes ER North Irvine Precise Land Use Plan 039 ER Irvine Corporate Yard 040 IS Irvine Center CUDP Phase II ER Irvine Center Zoning ER Irvine Center Development Agreement 041 IS Irvine Center CUDP Phase I ER Irvine Center- Zoning ER Irvine Center Development Agreement 042 IS Agua Chinon Channel Realignment 043 IS Irvine Center Drive Widening ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS INDEX (Cont.) Type Code Document Project Title 044 IS 121 Acre Medium Industrial Zoning ER Irvine Business Complex ER Irvine Business Complex (Supplement) ER II-C West 15th Amendment .045 ER, Sunset Fibre Waste Transfer Station ER Irvine Business Complex ER Irvine Business Complex (Supplement) ER H-C West 15th Amendment .046 ER Irvine Business Complex ER Irvine Business Complex (Supplement) ER II-C West 15th Amendment 047 ER Park Redhill Industrial Center ER Irvine Business Complex ER Irvine Business Complex (Supplement) ER H-C-West 15th Amendment 048 IS Foodpark Development ER Irvine Business Complex ER Irvine Business Complex (Supplement) ER H-C West 15th Amendment 049 IS' Koll Center Irvine ER Irvine Business Complex ER Irvine Business Complex (Supplement) ER II-C West 15th Amendment, 050 IS Main Street Trunk Sewer 051 ER Main. and Jamboree P.C. ER Irvine Business Complex ER Irvine Business Complex (Supplement 6/85), ER II-C West 15th Amendment 052 ER Village 14 Rezoning ER Village of Westgate'Environmental Data 053 ER Central Irvine GPA ER Village 14 Rephasing ER Village of Westgate Environmental Data 054 ER Village of Westpark ER Village 14 Rephasing ER Village of Westgate Environmental Data 055 ER Central Irvine GPA ER Village of Westpark ER Village of Westgate Environmental Data ER Village 14 Rephasing 056 EA Harvard Avenue/I-405 Overcrossing 057 ER Woodbridge Village Phase I ER Housing & Urban Development Review ER Woodbridge Village Zoning 058 IS Woodbridge Village NE Quad. ER Woodbridge Village Zoning ER Housing & Urban Development Review 059 ER Central Irvine GPA ER Woodbridge Village Phase I ER Woodbridge Village Zoning ER Housing & Urban Development Review ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS INDEX (Cont.) Type Code Document Project Title 060 IS Woodbridge Village SW Quad. ER Woodbridge Village Zoning ER Housing & Urban Development Review .061 IS Woodbridge Village SE Quad ER Woodbridge Village, Zoning ER Housing & Urban Development Review 062 EA Yale Ave/I-405 Bicycle Overcross. EA Yale Ave/I-405 Vehicular Overcross. 063 ER Saddleback College Site Selection . ER Village 12 Concept Plan 064 ER Orangetree Planned -Community ER Village 12 Concept Plan 065 ER Village 12 Concept Plan 066 ER Central Irvine GPA ER Village 12 Concept.Plan '067 ER Transmission Line (San Onofre to Santiago Substation) 068 ER' Irvine Medical Center ER Irvine Medical & Science Complex 069 ER Saddleback College Site Selection ER Irvine Medical & Science Complex 070 ER Irvine Medical .& Science Complex 071 EA Culver Dr./I-405 .Interchange Improvements 072 EA San Canyon/I-405 Interchange Improvements 073 ER Douglas Crow -Irvine Development 074 ER Michelson Drive Extension 075 - IS San Joaquin Commercial Recreation'Center 076 ER Expansion of Wastewater Reclamation Facilities 077 IS Irvine Equestrian Center 078 ER Rancho San Joaquin P.C. 079' ER . University -Town Center Zoning 080 IS University Town Center Core ER University. Town Center Zoning ' 081 ER Campus Drive Extension 082 IS Tentative Map-10484 083 IS Tentative Map 10483 084 ER Saddleback College Site Selection 085 EA University Drive Widening 086 ER Turtle Rock Village Zoning 087 ER Turtle Rock Apartments ER Turtle Rock Village Zoning 088 ER Christ College Irvine ER Turtle Rock Village Zoning 089 ER Turtle Rock Enclave VI[ ER Turtle Rock Village Zoning 090 ER Turtle Rock Enclave II ER Turtle Rock Village Zoning 091 - ER Turtle Rock Enclave IV 092 ER IS Turtle. Rock Village Zoning Turtle Rock Enclave III ER Turtle Rock Village Zoning ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS INDEX .(Cont.) Type Code Document Project Title 093 - IS Turtle Rock Enclave V ER Turtle Rock Village Zoning 094 ER Quail Hill P.0 095 ER Bommer Canyon GPA 096 ER Western Worlds Borrow Site 097 -ER San Joaquin Hills Trans. Corridor 098 ER Coyote Canyon Landfill - Genstar Gas Recovery ER Coyote Canyon Landfill - Borrow Site ER San Joaquin Hills Trans. Corridor 099 ER Coyote Canyon Landfill - Genstar Gas Recovery ER Coyote Canyon Landfill - Borrow Site 1-00 ER Bommer Canyon GPA ER San Joaquin Hills Trans. Corridor 101 EA San Diego Freeway Widening 102 ER Bonita Canyon Road 103 ER Conjunctive Use Water Wells and Pipeline 11 I r v i n e M E A D - 6 Environmental Documents Index 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits Sphere of Influence P.pa d• Sq—bv 5, 1985 MAP NUMBER: MAP TITLE: MAP TYPE: D-7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT INDEX DATA DATE PREPARED: TUNE 6, 1'985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Archaeological Reports Code Reports Included Within Coded Area 1 Padon, Beth and Bill Breece,.Arc*ha6ological Resource Inven- tory, 1984, City of Irvine and_Its Sphere .of Influence. 2 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1978, Archaeological and Historical Report on the Proposed Bee & Round Canyons Landfill Disposal Station. Steve E. Colegrove, 1972, Village of Valley View (letter report). Public Antiquities Salvage Team, California State University at Fullerton, 1976, -Archaeological. Resources of the Tentative Coyote Canyon Landfill Replacement Site in Central Orange County. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1978, Cultural Resources Report - Preliminary Assessment on the San Diego'Creek Water- shed in Hicks Canyon, Rattlesnake -Creek Wash, San Diego Creek, and the San Joaquin Marsh.- Bill- Breece and Beth Padon, 1982, Cultural Resource Survey of Archaeological Resources, Foothill Transportation Corridor, Phase II. E. Gary Stickel, 1979, Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the City of Los -Angeles Hyperion Water Facilities and the County of Los Angeles, and Orange County Sanitation District Proposed. Round Canyon Site. 3 (El Toro Marine Base) ,184 .4 N..Nelson Leonard III; 1975 Archaeological Impact Evaluation: Park Place. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1976, Archaeological Survey Report on Tentative Tract No. 9379,' Lots A-G and A-5 of Tract No. 282 in the City of Irvine. 0.- Archaeological Surveys (Cont.) Code Reports Included Within Coded Area Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1,976, Archaeological Survey Report on a Four Acre Parcel of Land Located in Irvine Indus- trial Area, Irvine, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1976, Archaeological Survey Report on The North' Irvine A-ssessment Di -strict Located in the. "Frances" Area of the City of Irvine-. Scientific Resource Surveys,. Inc.,.1977 Archaeological Survey Report on Tentative Tract 9623 Located in the City of Irvine. Archaeological Planning Collaborative, 1980, Archaeological Records Search and Field Survey, Northwood Project Sites No. 1 and 2, City of Irvine. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1976, Archaeological Report on the Survey of Meadow Mobile Homes Proposed Development "The Groves" Located.in the Frances Area, North Irvine. Archaeological Planning Collaborative, 1979, Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey, .Orangetree Park 20-Acre Initial -Study, Irvine. Michael L. Ahlering; A Discussion of Scientific Cultural Resources in Relation .to the North Irvine Precise Land Use Plan. LSA,_ Inc., 1981; Cultural Resources Records Search and Field Survey, Northwood Project Sites 3 and 4, City of Irvine. LSA, Inc., . 1982, Historic Property Survey for Proposed Improvements to Jeffrey Road and I-5, Irvine. 5 Marie G. Cottrell, 1976, Archaeological Record Search and Field Survey of Sites N'o. 1, 2, and 5, North Irvine (letter report). Marie G. Cottrell, 1977, Village 10 - Records Search (letter report). Steve E. Colegrove, 1972, Village of Valley View (letter report). Archaeological Surveys (Cont.) Code - Reports Included Within Coded Area Michael L. Ahlering, A Discussion of Scientific Cultural Resources- in Relation to the N.ort_h Irvine Precise Land Use Plan. 6 Marie G. Cottrell, 1978, Archaeological Resources Located in Village 14, Irvine (letter report). Laura,Lee Mitchell, 1976 Woodbrige-Observer Survey Project. Steve E. Colegrove, 1973, Central Village "A' East Irvine Business -and Industrial Center and' Regional Commercial. Tr - angle Scientific Resources -Survey (letter report). Theo N. Mabry, 1979, Culver/I=405 and Harvard/I-405 Area Arc-haeological Report"Inventory (letter report). - Theo N: Mabry, 1979, Archaeological Record Search -and Recon- naissance, Yale Avenue Rights -of -Ways,-, Irvine, CA, Marie G. Cottrell, 1978,, Culver Drive/I-405 Interchange Improvements (letter report). Marie G. Cottrell, 1976, Walk -Over 'Survey Central Village "A" (letter report). Beth Padon, 1984, Archaeological Resource Assessment Irvine Industrial Complex -East, Phase IV., Irvine, N. Nelson Leonard III," 1975, Archaeological- Resources of Rancho San Joaquin. 7 - Beth Padon, 1983, Assessment of Archaeological Resources, RV Storage Project, Irvine. Marie Cottrell, 1980, Walk-O-ver Survey of 25 Acres, Southwest Corner of Sand Canyon and AT&SF Railroad in City of Irvine,. 8 Theo N. Mabry, 1979, Archaeological Records Search and Recon- naissance Survey, Orange Tree Park 20-Acre Initial Study, Irvine. 0 0 Archaeological Surveys (Cont.) Code Reports Included Within -.Coded Area LSA, Inc., 1981, Cultural Resource Assessment Village 12 Development Site. Marie G. Cottrell, 1976, Walk -Over Survey Central Village "A" (letter report). Steve E. Col-egrove, 1973, Proposed Orange Tree Acres Planned Community (letter report). Marte G. Cottrell, 1976, Archaeological Survey on Sa,n Diego Creek Flood Control' Channel -(letter -report). _ Marie G. Cottrell, 1977, Archaeological Survey Report on Vil- lage 12 and Village 14. 9 Beth Padon, 1984, Cultural Resource Assessment,'Irvine Center Project_, Irvine. Marie G. Cottrell, 1978, Alton/Santa Ana Freeway Interchange Construction and Irvine Center Drive, San Diego Freeway Inter- change Expansion: Archaeological Resources Review (letter report). LSA, -Inc., 1981, Historic Property Survey, Alton- Parkway/I-5 Interchange and Irvine Center Drive/I-405 Interchange, Irvine. - Theo Mabry, 1979, Archaeological Survey,. Alton and Irvine Center.Drive Interchange Improvements (letter report)-. Steve E. Colegrove; 1973, Central Village "A"' -East Irvine' Business and, Industrial Center. and Regional Commercial Tri- angle (letter report). Jill Weisbord, 1981 Cul.tural Resource Survey of the Irvine Center D.A. Village 13. Beth Padon, 1.983, Assessment of Archaeological and Pal-eonto- logical Resources, Irvine Medical Complex, Irvine. Beth Padon, 1983, Assessment of Archaeological and Paleonto- logical Medical Center, Irvine, CA. • Archaeological Surveys (Cont.) Code Reports Included Within Coded Area 10 Theo N. Mabry, 1978, Archaeological Records Search and Recon- naissance Survey, Irvine Industrial Complex -East, Phase 2 and 3 Areas, Irvine. Beth Padon, 1984, Cultural Resource Assessment, Planning Area 34B. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 19.77, Archaeological' Survey Report on a 34-Acre Parcel in the E1 Toro Area. 11 LSA, Inc., 198I Cultural Resource Assessment Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Development Site, Irvine. Marie G. Cottrell, 1978, Report of Archaeological Resources Survey on Laguna and Peters Canyons. Charles N-. I'rwin; 1974, Laguna Canyon Su-rvey. John Romani, 1984, Archaeological- Survey .Report -for the Widen- ing -of Route Ora-133, Between Canyon Acres Drive and 1'405 PM. 12 Theo N.-Mabry, 1979, Updated Archaeological, Records Search and Reconnaissance with Mitigation Recommendations, Quail Hill Planning Area, Irvine. Archaeological Pl-anning Collaborative, 19.79, Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey, Turtle,Rock Enclaves 6 and 7. .Steve E. Col.egrove, 1973, Turtle Rock Planning Area (letter report). LSA, Inc., 1981 Archaeological and P-aleontological Resource Assessment Turtle Rock Enclave 8, Irvine. Steve E. Colegrove, 1973, Scientific Resources Survey on Turtle Rock Planning Area; Irvine (letter report). Raymond L. Bernor, 1977, Paleontological Resource Survey and Impact Evaluation for Turti,e Rock Enclaves 3 and 5, Irvine. • 0 ' I . Archaeological Surveys (Cont.) Code Rgports- Included Within Coded Area Theodore Cooley, 1974, Archaeological Site Survey Records for Bonita Canyon Extension (letter report). - Marie G. Cottrell, 1976, Archaeological Survey' on Turtle Rock Enclave 4 (letter -report). 13 Archaeological Resource Management, Corporation, 1978, Report of Archaeological Resources Assessment conducted for the Irvine Industrial Complex -West. Beth Padon, 1984, Archaeological Field Review, Village 19A Project, Irvine. PBR and LSA, Inc., 1979, Wastewater Management and Action'P ro- gram Draft Environmental & Action Program. Theo N. Mabry, 1979, Archaeological Records- Search and Recon- naissance, Upper Newport Bay,.Newport'Beach. 4 E. Gary Stickel and Jerry. B. .Howard, 1976, Cultural Resource Survey of the -University of California, Irvine. Thomas F. King, 1973, Archaeological Reconnaissance 'of the Irvine Town Center Project. Glen Rice, .1976, Systematic Surface Inspection -in Town Center Area (l.etter report) .. 15 Theo N. Mabry, 1979, Archaeological Reconnaissance of it -Acre. Bonita Canyon Baptist Church Site. Ultrasystems, 1976, Archaeological, Historical, and Paleonto- logical Resources Western World Medical Foundation Project, Irvine. Archaeological' Research, Inc.,- 1975, Preliminary Report - Bonita Canyon. Robert H. Crabtree, 1973, Harborview Hills Development Section 3 and 4, Sites 11, 13, and 14 (letter report). is Archaeological Survgys(Cont.) Code Reports Included Within Coded Area . Archaeological Research, Inc., 1977., Archaeological Resources of the Coyote Canyon Disposal Station. Marie G:: Cottrell, 1978, Preliminary. Archaeological Survey Conducted for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Marie G. Cottrell, 1983, Archaeological Resource Assessment, Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill.. Edward B. Weil, 1981, Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Pelican Hill Road. Jean & L. W. Lewis Tadlock, 1979, San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor Cultural Resources Study. - David -Van Horn, 1983, A.Cultural/Scientific Resources Investi- gatiorr of the Planned San ,Joaquin Hills, Transportation .Corrir dor (.Phase II). Beth Padon, 1982, Cultural Resources�'Survey for General Plan .Amendment, Bommer and Shady .Canyons. 16 Theodore G. Cooley, 1974, Scientific.Resourcet Survey of Field 514' in Irvine Center (letter report).- 17 Theo N. Mabry,-1978, Archaeological Records.Search. and Recon- naissance Investigation, Agua Chinon Flood Control Improvement Project. 18 Theodore Cooley. and Adella- Schroth,' 1979, Archaeological Resources Assessment., Irvine Ranch Water District Pipeline Right -of -Ways. 19 Marie Cottrell, 1977, Santiago Aqueduct Parallel Reaches 2-6 (letter report). 20 Beth Padon, 1983, Hi sto.ri c Property Survey Report ,for Irvine .Center Drive Widening,. 21 Theodore Cooley, 1974, Letter Report on Proposed Haul Road. 0 Archaeological Surveys (Cont.) Code Reports Included Within Coded Area 22 Cottrell, Marie, 1978, Letter Report on Addendum to Previous Report on Reach 4, Santiago Canyon Parallel Aqueduct. 23 Pat Sperry, 1972, Site Survey Report, U.S. Marine Hel'i-copter Base: Tustin, CA. 24 Beth Padon, 1983, Historic Property Survey Report Proposed Yale Avenue/I-5 Overcrossing. 25 LSA, Inc., 1982, Historic Property Survey for Proposed Improvements_ to Jeffrey Road and I-5. 26 SRS, Inc., 1978, Cultural Resources .Report, San Diego. Creek Watershed in Hicks Canyon, "Hicks Canyon Wash, Rattlesnake Canyon Wash, San Diego Creek, and San Joaquin Marsh. 27 Marie Cottrell, '1976,, Walk -Over Survey of Irvine Boulevard Between Sand Canyon and Jeffrey Road. 8- Archaeological Planning Collaborative, 1979., His"toric. Property Survey, Moulton Parkway/ -Irvine Center Drive. 29 SRS, 1982, Cultural Resource Property Survey", Orange County Rapid Transit Concept Design located in the Central Portion of Orange County. 30 Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, -Inc.,- 1973, Walk -Over Survey of Five" Miles Along North Side of San Diego Freeway- 0 etter report). On file at the PCAS Research Library.. 31 Theodore Cooley, 1974, Field Survey of the -Proposed Right -of - Way for the Extension of Michelson Drive (letter .report). 32 Ron Douglas, 1981, Historic Perspective" Survey, Harvard Avenue/I-405 Overceo"ssing. 33 Theo Mabry, 1979, Records Searc-h "and -Reconnaissance, Harvard Avenue Extension. 34 William A. Dodge, 1978, An Archaeological Assessment of Eight Cultural Localities Along the San Qnofre/Santiago: 220-KY Transmission Line. ft- Archaeological Surveys (Cont.) Code Reports Included Within Coded Area Lowell Bean and S. Vane, 1979, Cultural Resources and *the High -Voltage Transmission Line From San Onofre to Santiago Substation and Black Star Canyon.. Westec, Inc.; 1980, National Regi-ster Assessment Program of Cultural Resources of the 230-KV Transmission Line Right -of - Way From San OnofreNuclear. Generating Substation to Bl-ack Star Canyon and Santiago Substation- and to E nci na and, M-i ssi on Valley. CSRI, Inc., '19K, Cultural- Resource- Data Recovery Program for the 230-KV Transmission Line Right -of -Way From Sa-n O.nofre Nuclear -Generating Station to Black Star Canyon and Santiago Substation. and to Encina and- Mission Valley -Substation., Volumes 1 and 2. 0 b w L jLJ L k 14 1NE " V61 ,.::'' •f ►.,`'-� M :......... MIN— I r v i n e Archaeological Documents M E A Index M9 Unsurveyed Areas D 7 Rep—d:dune 6,1995 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence 1 MAP TITLE: I STATISTICAL AREAS AND RESIDENTIAL PHASING MAP TYPE: DATA DATE PREPARED: AUGUST 26, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE _ Statistical Areas - 1st and 2nd'digits Code Interpretation Code Interpretation OOx (Federal or state property) Olx Statistical Area 1 18x Statistical Area. 18 02x Statistical Area 2 Ox Statistical Area 19 03x Statistical Area 3. 20x Statistical Area'20 04x StatisticalArea 4 21x Statistical Area 21 05x Statistical Area 5 22x. .Statistical Area 22 06x Statistical Area .6 23x Statistical Area 23 07x Statistical Area 7 24x Statistical Area 24 08x Statistical Area 8' 25x Statistical Area 25' 09x Statistical Area 9 26x Statistical Area 26 10x Statistical Area 10 27x Statistical Area 27 llx Statistical Area 1 l' 28x . Statistical Area 28 12x -Statistical Area 12 29x Statistical Area 29 13x Statistical Area 13 30x Statistical -Area .30 14x Statistical- Area 14 31x Statistical- Area-31 . 15x -Statistical Area 15 32x Statistical Area 32 16x Statistical Area .16 33x Statistical Area 33 17x Statistical Area 17 34x Statistical Area 34 35x Statistical Area 35 Residential Phasing_-. 3rd digit . Code Interpretation xxO Not part of the Residential Phasing Plan xxl Phase 1 (To 1974-75) xx2. Phase 2 (1974-75 to 1979-80) . xx3 Phase 3 (1979-80 to 1984-85) xx4 Phase 4 (1984-85 to 1989-90) xx5 Phase 5 (1989-90 to 1994-95) xxd Phase 6 (Beyond 1994-95) �..w�' �'��yGJj ,.'S(•xy�s�` 4y.F 1�' •. ��»n� ��.� {i \„ IR �„ 'ice .,., -�� `-. ipt`= �Ot :: c.-• �•, _ -';�"�l< '{.+�'� \�.•� R,:�`".: .4 its � '•J�,�,/�' 1 f ',+ . i • � � :lyd. 370 ll � 0Owl r-h'i 66 I �!I 1 V-7, •t � � �yp4. IC3.D5+'"if�YZ%na.Y.—ice"--<.rrry \7LGxAouw - - f• �L i `� ' x `�� I ] I ti / (—i- {ice-T-'i-- I r ° ' ° e Statistical Areas & M E A D 8 Residential Phasing - 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits Sphere of Influence Pmpamd:Au8ust26,1985 0 MAP TITLE: ITAP ZONES MAP TYPE: DATA DATE PREPARED: SEPTEMBER 12, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE ITAP Zones Map codes are equivalent to ITAP zone nuinerical designations. Some zones extend beyond MEA study area, and some'lie entirely outside the ME study area resulting in gaps in the numbering sequence. - - -A ra w "o) N1 X 43 YN ni _4 K�e , W6 �J ILI 10TV 2 55 67, z?n V� F J5 �`.�;,�, fill i!,5111 I Uq 2 lie _j IF JLII 21 It A tip A MIN PAN 7 55AQ XMZ \7 QQ JUDIA'Ad"I'M h. 1, ME.I. aw29 g L ZJ 2- r 11"8 US N 4- 29 r4f!1L ki —3 _3 442 130 1 I1C 136 j[- 1 s. wall '17- W41, C (D RMIL 58 T-0--PtILL g� 7 265 26 x- 281,;� I r v i n e ITAP Zones M E A D-9 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits Sphere of Influence Prepared September 12, 1985 r MAP NUNVIBER: ' D-10 MAP TITLE: CENSUS AREAS - MAP TYPE: DATA DATE PREPARED: AUGUST 28, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Regional Statistical. Areas (RSA) - 1st & 2nd digits Code Interpretation 39xx RSA Number F-39 (Central Coast) 44xx RSA Number E44 (El Toro) CommunijAnalysis Areas (CAA) - 3rd & 4th digits Code Interpretation . xx47 CAA Number 47 (North Newport Beach) xx48' CAA Number 48 (Airport Commercial)- xx49 CAA Number 49 (Irvine Industrial Complex) . xx50 CAA Number 50. (South Irvine) xx51. CAA Number 51 (Central Irvine) xx52 CAA Number 52 (North Irvine) xx53 CAA Number 53 (East Irvine Industrial) xx54 CAA Number 54 (MCAS, El Toro) xx61 CAA Number 61 (Laguna Beach) is I r v i n e M E A D-10 Census Areas 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence NcPamd' Au8urt28,1985 MAP NUMBER: D-11 MAP TITLE: IRWD TOKEN AREAS MAP TYPE: DATA DATE PREPARED: SEPTEMBER 8, 1985 LAST UPDATE: NONE Token Areas 'Code. Interpretation Code Interpretation O1 Not Used 38 Token Area 38 02 Not Used 39 Token Area 39 03 Token Area 03 40 Token Area 40 04 Token Area 04 41 Token Area 41 05 Token Area 05 42 Token Area 42 06 Token Area 06 43 Token Area 43 07 Token Area 07 44 Token Area 44 08 Token Area 08 45 Token Area 45 09 Token Area -09 46 Token Area 46 10 Not Used 47 Token Area 47 11 Not Used. 48 Not Used 12 Not Used 49 Not Used 13 Not Used 50 Not Used 14 Token Area 14 51 Not Used .15 Token Area 15 52 Token Area 52 16. Token Area 16 53 ' Code Not Used 17 Token Area 17 54 Token Area 54 18 Not Used .55 Token Area 55 19 Not Used 56 Token Area 56 20 Token Area 20 57 Token Area 57 21 Token Area 21 58 - Not Used - 22. Token Area 22 - 59 Token Area 59 23 'Token Area 23 60 Token Area 60 24 Token Area 24 61 Token Area 61 25 Token Area 25 62 Token Area 62 26 Token Area 26 63 Not Used 27 Token Area 27 64 Not Used 28 Token Area 28 65 Token Area 65 29 Token Area 29 -66 Not Used 30 Token Area 30 67 Token Area 67 31 Token Area 31 68 Not Used 32 Token Area 32 69 Token Area 69 33 Token Area 33 70 Token Area 70 34 Token Area 34 71 Not Used 35 Token Area 35 72 Token Area 72 36 Token Area 36 '73 Not Used 37 Token Area 37 74 Token Area 74 Note: Codes not used represent token areas outside MEA 'boundaries. Some areas within the MEA area also extent beyond the boundaries. n M E A D-11 IRWD Token Zones 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence Mp-d: &pt—ber 8, 1985 L 7_� AD J0 0 Q 'JUEMA EXPANDED CODE -DESCRIPTIONS i 0 0 C ] Expanded Code Descriptions MAP C-1 GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS 1 Seismic Response Area (SRA) 1 Potentially soft or loose soils/high ground water. This is one of the two areas considered to have --greater potential for ground failure in the form of liquefaction, in' comparison to the other seismic response areas. Liquefaction is not expected to occur for all earthquakes, nor over the whole of SRA 1. 2 Seismic. Response Area (SRA) 2 - Denser soils/deeper ground water. The predominant potential seismic hazard in this area is ground motion. Ground breakage, or ground failure is not expected to characterize this area. Localized liquefaction potential is remote. 3 : Seismic Response Area (SRA) 3 - Shallow alluvium over and abutting bedrock. Ground motion. is primary potential .seismic hazard. As slope increases, slope instability potential increases. Localized liquefaction potential is remote. 4 Seismic Response Area (SRA) 4 - Highlands characteristically over , 20% slope. Area is, in general, potentially less. stable -than SRA 3 due to the. larger incline. Liquefaction potential is extremely remote. 5 Seismic Response Area: (SRA) 5 - Less stable geologic formations. These are -areas representing existing mapped landslide areas. As such,, potential for slope instability is higher than in SRA 4. Expanded Code Descriptions Page 3 MAP C-4 AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY 1 Class I -Soils-- Soils with few limitations that restrict their use for,field crops. 2 Class II Soils - Soils- have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices, or both. 3 Class III*and IV Soils Class III Soils - Soils have, severe limitations that reduce the- choice of plants or require special conservation practices, or both. Class IV Soils - Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. 5 Other than' Class I through IV Soils - Severe soil iimitations restrict their use largely to uses such as pasture, range, woodland, wildlife,. recreation, water supply, or aesthetic purposes. 9 Water - Reservoirs, small farm ponds and natural lakes. Flood control basins are not included in this classification unless there are areas of permanent inundation. 0 • i 0 Expanded Code Descriptions MAP D-1 LANDFORM 01- .Lake -'A standing body of inland water. P: age 4 02 Reservoir - An artificial standing body of inland water. The water may be supplied by either natural stream flow into the depression -or by the importation of, water through the -use of canals, pipes,. and .pumps. - . '03 Coastal Lagoon/Estuar-y - Shallow water bodies which have a direct but restricted connection to the sea. They contain ocean derived salts which tend to cause clay minerals held in incoming fresh water to coagulate or flocculate and settle, gradually filling the lagoon with sediment. Most southern California lagoons have been dredged, to provide boat harbors and marina. Where such dredging has been carried out and there is an unrestricted influx of ocean water subject to tidal flux and wave .action, the area has nor been mapped as apart.: 04 -Depression - A low place of any size on -a plain surface, -with drainage underground or by evaporation. It can also mean a hollow completely surrounded by higher ground -and having no natural outlet. 05 Delta - Generally a prograding or building :marine shoreline. Deltas exhibit a variety of '-forms but all of them are conspicuous seaward bulges on the shoreline at the mouths of rivers where deposition of sediments -is, caused by the rapid reduction in current velocity. Delta growth, while often rapid under natural conditions, has all but ceased along the rivers and estuaries of .the southern California coast because of the - effect of upstream flood control projects and because urban -land covers have acted to limit the amount of sediments which reach the ocean coast. Where the lower portion of a delta is overlain by a coastal lagoon or marsh/swamp, the latter take precedence for mapping. 05 Beach : The zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the low water line to where there is a noticeable change in material. or physiographic form, or to where there is a line of permanent vegetation. In recent time the amount of sediments reaching the beaches of southern California from streams has been greatly diminished through a variety of man -mad- features such as flood control structures and settling basins and through the construction of artificial surfaces in urbanized areas; the net result has been a decrease in the, size of the beaches. . l� i 0 Expanded Code Descriptions D-1 Landform (Cont.) Page S 07 Dunes - Irregularly shaped hills and depressions paralleling the coastline. Coastal' dunes are sometimes found landward of sand beaches, particularly where there is. a coastal plain. Often these dunes have plant cover which helps. to stabilize the- dune. A second type of sand dune is the climbing_ dune. which occupies hollows in the mountain front inland from a "feeding" beach or other source of dune materiaL Here the breezes blowing in from the sea carry sand and shell fragments and deposit them along the foot of the mountain. 08 Cliffs - The steeply sloping zone between two flat or -shallowly sloping landforms, such as between a beach and an elevated terrace.. Cliffs, are inaintairied by the erosion and removal of material from the foot of the higher -landform by either wave or stream action. Cliffs may be unstable, depending on the nature of the materials from .which they are made. Where they are unstable they represent zones of potential surface 1ailure. Erosion at the base of such cliffs often causes the cliff face to collapse. 09 Gully-- Steep -walled, canyon -like trenches -whose upper- end grows progressively in. an upslope direction. The distinguishing feature of a gully is that it cuts across a flat surface such as a terrace. Gullies . are characteristically dynamic features, with flooding and consequent erosion quite common. 10 F000dplain - A low, flat belt of land bordering most major .steams and rivers just above the stream surface. In areas where there has been no interference by man, all or part of this surface may be flooded annually, with -consequent erosion and deposition. Because most major streams in southern California. have been channelized and their flows regulated by dams, floods .no longer -regularly cover floodplain surfaces.. However, even with all of the current flood prevention measures, floods are much more likely landforms. to occur on floodplains than on most other 11 Upland Valley - The gently sloping surface at the bottom of mountain canyons and coastal valleys and above the active floodplairi. Unlike an alluvial terrace, where the terrace is separated from the floodplain by a cliff or terrace foreslope, the transition between a floodplain and the valley -bottom is gradual. The valley bottom above the floodplain is generally safe from flooding and landsliding. 12 Marine Terrace Bench - Old coastal plains or wavecut benches which now stand above sea level and are separated from the ocean by a cliff or terrace sideslope. Several marine terraces standing at different elevations and of different ages can occur along the coast The seaward margin of marine terrace is frequently unstable due to erosion; it is here that cliffs often occur. 0 i is Expanded Code Descriptions D-I Landform (Cont.) Page 6 13 Marine Terrace Sideslope - A transitional zone where a marine terrace is separated from another flat landform at a different elevation. The separation is typically marked by a grade of intermediate slope. 14 Alluvial Fan - Sands and gravels carried by a- steam and- deposited in a, fan shape apron. Within the mountains, the stream's position is fixed -in its canyon, but upon entering the plain the steam constantly shifts, sweeping back and forth in an arc, depositing sediments in a cone with a. convex profile as the waters spread and seep into the ground. Unless the steam has become entrenched or has been channelized by Man, alluvial- fans present a potential for flooding. 15 -Alluvial Terrace Bench .-- Sediments which have been deposited along river floodplains, in -valleys and at the foot -of mountain side slopes. These sediments are often left as terraced deposits as. stream cut lower -beds and as orthographic uplift raises the general level of the land. Because. these deposits are generally unconsolidated to loosely consolidated they often exhibit instability, especially when they occur adjacent to a.steeply sloping area. 16 Alluvial' Terrace Sideslope - A transitional zone where an alluvial -terrace is separated from another- float landforin at a different elevation. The separation is typically marked by a grade of intermediate slope. 17 Alluvial Plain - A flat to gently sloping surface formed of older alluvial sediments deposited by water. This sedimentary material consists of fine mud, sand, or gravel and generally fills former valleys. - I& Landslide - A mass of rock that has moved downslope in one event. Landslode includes all forms of land surface failures. The landslides mapped are of varying ages, but all of them are Pleistocene or younger. Where the landslide mass moved as one discrete unit there is a high potential 'for reactivation of the slippage ' planes. Where the landslide fell as a crumbled mass with, many .slippage planes, renewed movement can occur on any one of more of these plains. 19, Rock Outcrop - The above surface expression of a subsurface rock formation. 20 Mountain Ridgetop - The flat or nearly flat surfaces at the tops of mountains. These generally are quite stable. Mountain ridgetops tend to form visual breaks in the landscape, making them particularly sensitive areas in terms- of visual impacts. 21 Mountain Sideslope - All of the steeply sloping areas within the mountain ranges. The stability of the mountain sideslopes varies widely with the geologic rock ,type and internal structure. Expanded Code Descriptions D-1 Landform (Cont.) • Page 7 22 Hilltop - The flat or nearly flat surfaces at the topes of hills or foothills. Hill/foothill tops tend to form visual breaks in the landscape, making them ,particularly sensitive areas in terms of visual impacts. Hill/foothill tops differ from mountain ridgetops in, that hill/foothills tend to be either isolated areas, of higher elevation or transitional areas between the shallow plains, valley bottoms, and terraces; and the steeper mountain sideslopes. Hills/foothills .are smaller than mountains and are: generally less than 1000 feet above the surrounding terrain. 23 Hill/Sideslope - All of the steeply sloping areas within the hills and foothills tend to be less severe than those found in' the mountain classification. 24 ' Man-made/Altered - This class applies to those areas where the natural landform no longer exists. • Expanded Code Descriptions MAP D-2 SLOPE ZONES Angle of Gradient Code % Slope Inclination. Slope Ratio- (Feet per Mile) 1 0-5% to 20 52' 20:1 264 2 5-10% to 50 43' 10:1 '528 3 10-15% to 80 35' 6.66:1 792 4 15-20% to 110, 26' 5:1 1056 5 20-25% to 140-17' 4:1 1320 6 25-30% to 170 11' 3.33:1 1584 7 >30%- over 17011' over:3.33:1 over 1584 Page 8 Expanded Code Descriptions MAP D-3 AGRICULTURAL BUILDING SITE o a SOILSCAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT H b � H � V • m � ai -H � d d - 0 u a d ona Med ,rl 1-C r•i N JJ PA tl) 10 M CJ , . m 6 L � .0 w o 0 a� w 0 o N N 'b .0 1-1. .r-1 06 r4 td W k ►+ O .0 O Cal O O a. «a x w N a to En to Page .9 PHYSICAL AND c-a y CHEMICAL PROPERTIES C H a 4 u kw, Ch , N 4) 0 .-01 1-4 .� U aAj aOi x ) O O td ,C w O O M tit O O 0. IV W X O O $,+ 1$4 '1 >, N a w W U U •w wx Cn 1 Alo clay 415 2 315 611 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 4 03- 6 6 1 14 3 5 1 2 Alo variant - clay 415 2 315 611 6 6 6 6. 6 1 1 4 03 6 6- 1 14 3 5 1 3 Anaheim loam 411 2 411 611 6 6 6 6 .6 1 1 5 09' 1 •1 1 25 3 4 1 4 Anaheim clay loam 6-11 2 411 711 6 6 6 6 6 2 1 5 08 4 '4 1 22 3 4 1 5 Balcom clay -loam 611 2 311 611 6 5. 6 5 6 2 1 5 08 4' 4 1 25 3 2 •1 6 Balcom-Rock . outcrop complex 631 1 631 631 6 6 6 6, 6 2 1 5' 08' 4 4 1 25 3 2 1 7 Beaches 821 1 821 821 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0' 0 00 0 0' 1 8'Blasingame loam 411 1 -411 41.1 6 6 6 6 6- 2-- 1 5 09 2 2 2- 13 3 4 1 9 Blas-ingame stony loam 731 2 631 731 6 6 6 6 6 2 1 5 09 1 2 2 09 3 4 1 lO.Blasingame— Rock outcrop -complex 631 1 631 631' 6 6 6 6 6 2 1 5 09 2 2. 2 13 3 4 1- 11 Blasingame— Vista complex. 611 2 411 611 5 5 6 5 6 1 1 4 10 2 2 2 08 3 4 1 12 Bolsa ' silt loam .222 1 222 222 4 6 6 4 6 1 1 1 08 4 6 1 27 7 4 2 13 Bolsa silt loam, drained 100 1 100' 100 4 6 6 4 6 1 1 1 08 4 6 1 27 7 4 2 14 Bolsa silty clay loam 222 1 222 222 4 6 6 4 6 1 1 1 08 4, 6 1 27 7 4 2 15 Bolsa silty clay loam, drained 100 1 100 100 4 6. 6 4 6 1 1 1 08 4 6 1, 27 7- 4 2 16 Bosanko clay 415 2 315 611 6 6. 6 6 6 1 1 5 03 6 6 1 19 5 5 1 17 Bosanko—Balcom complex 415 2 415 611 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 5 04 5 5 1 21 4 3 1 18 Botella loam 211 1 211 211 1 4 4 6 6 1 1 1 09 4 4 1 24 1 2 1 19 Botella clay loam 211 2 211 311 4 4 5 6 6 1 1 1 OS .4 4 1 23 7 2 1 • 20 Cal] eas loam, clay loam, eroded 711 1 711 711 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 7 09 4 6 1. 22 1 5 1 Expanded Code Descriptions D-3 Soils (Cont.) Page 10 AGRICULTURAL BUILDING SITE z m_ PHYSICAL AND z CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT 6' CHEMICAL PROPERTIES WF4 H x H N W H co W 0�0 Z 10 0 M 4 W U 0 0 r-4 O w u M cc V N N O a O �O w ed > to o u f+ coo 6 a cd 1+ >� r1 41 �°• .3c iJ ,C CJ '3 t E N w to 0 JJ r 4 P% i+ 0 P+ oy W to to o tad o N E+ w w o o r4 ++ 3 to> r�1 4 ,•1 ri a o o ,a P'+ u d v .n m o ae �r1 +n 00 o sr- o o Co.>= .-c O O "4 X 1-4 r•) r-1 9-1 1 9-1 co ,� . L CJ tJ -W W .G lJ aJ 6 O •ri O t* O W •4 M rl w O O W w V O/ W ij r_1 3 Co 0 rl w 0 U O a. 0 O O O O P. W QJ CI W .0 W O W O. O O 'O Cd 4W A to r.a Cn to to A P+ to U U W W' x N 21 Capistrano sandy loam 311 2 311 411 2 2 5 4 2 2 1 1 13 • 1 1 1 14 7 2 1 22 Chesterton loamy sand 611 1 611- 611 .5 5 6 6 6 1 1 1 06 2 3 1 22 3 5 1 23 Chino silty clay• loam - 222' 1 222 222 4 4 4 6 6 1 1 1 08 4 6 1 00 0 4 2 24 Chino silty clay loam, drained 100 1 100 100 4 4 4 6 6, 1 1- 1 08 4 5 1 00 0 4 1 25 Cieneba sandy -loam 611 1- 611 611 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 8 13 1 1 1 14 1 4 1 26 Cieneba sandy loam, eroded 711 1 711 711 6- 6 6 6 6- 1 1 8 13 1 1 1 14 1 4- I 27 Cieneba- Bl as ing amem- Rock outcrop complex 631 1 631 631 6 6 6 6 6 1. 1 6 10 2 2 2 12 2 4 1 28 Cieneba-. Rock -outcrop complex' 631 2- 631 731 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 8 13 1 1 '1 14 1 4 1 29 Corralitos loamy sand 334 1' 334 334 _6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 17 1 4 4 i9 7 1 1 30 Corralitos - loamy sand, moderately fine sub- stratum 234 1 234 234 6 1 1 1 6 2 1 -1 07 2 5, 4 07 7 1 3 31 Cropley clay 215 2 215 235 6 6 6 6 6 1- 1 1 03. 6 6 1 14 7 5 4 32 Escondido very fine sandy loam 611 2 411 611 5 5 6 5. 6 1 1 5 09 1 1 4 25 1 5 1 33 Exchequer - Rock outcrop complex 731 1 731 731 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 8 09 1 1 4 25 1 5 1 34 Friant - fine - sandy loam 711 1 711 711 6 6 6 6 6 2 1, 8 13 1 1 1 22 1 5 1 • 35 Gabino gravelly clay loam 631 1 631 631 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 4 03 5 5 2 16 5 5 1 Expanded Code Descriptions Page 11 D-3 Soils (Cont.) AGRICULTURAL BUILDING SITE z cn PHYSICAL AND CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT < CHEMICAL PROPERTIES e a H • V .H x d H3d r�i H H aai to k C k4+ O d 01 b u O U 0 01 00) r01 ' ai w H O r-1 /d .7 U t0 r-I Ca L U $ 0�) Cf ?� . to . U' U ri i U O .0 P4w 00 0 O H O O 44 to ? 7 x � to .1 0) G � V a' U, 0! G1 ' N 0) .'S O N O N, o' O _H O -H i-1 O G a '00 41 ,Z r-I 1r 9-1 4 r� r-I r-i to/J ri U $4 o U F+ O .0 41•� a �+ � w 'w �+ w H 4A o m� o w ro m N 0) F+ a .-i O Z 3 O a to rl x 0 .G d g A 0 S cn U o .a a. 0) c� O v� , O w W A 0) a .0 En O u O c� P w )+ w > x • 0) v; 36 Garretson gravelly very fine sandy .loam 211 1 211 211 4 1 4 4 4 1 T 1 09 11 1 22 7 2 1 37 Hanford sandy loam 211 1 211 211 1 1 4 1 1 2 i• 1 13 1 4 1 14 T 2 1 3.8 Hueneme fine sandy loam 222 1 222- 222 6 6 6 6 6 2 1 .1 13 1 6 1 00 0 4 2 39 Hueneme fine sandy loam, drained 100 1 100 100 1 1 1 1 1 2 1• 1 13 1 6 1 00 0 2 1 40 Las Posas gravelly loam 711 1 71.1 711- 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 4 09, 3 5 1 14 3 4 i 41 Laughlin gravelly loam 711 1 711 711 6, 6 6 6 6 1 1 4 10 2 4 4 16 3 4: 1 42 Marina loamy sand- 434 2 334 434 6 1 2. 1 1 .2 1 1 09 1 1 1 01 7 2 1 43 'Metz loamy .sand- 334 1 334 334 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 11 1 6 .1. 03 7 1 1 44 Metz sandy loam, moderately fine sub —stratum 234 1 234 234 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 11 2 6 1 05 7 1 1 45 Mocho sandy loam 100 1 100 100 1 4- -4 4 4 1 1 1 09 2 6 1 18 7 2 1 46 Mocho, loam 100 2 100 211 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 09 2 6 1 27 7 2 1 47 '.T odjeska gravelly loam 334 2 314 411 6. 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 14 1 1 4 04 3 2 1 48 Myford sandy loam 413 2 413 611, 5 6 6' 6 6 1 1 1 02 3 6' 2 15 .3 5 1 49 Myford sandy loam, eroded 711 2 611 711 5 6 6- 6' 6 1 1 1 02 3 6 2 15 3 5 1 50 Myford sandy - loam, thick surface 333 2 313 333 4 6 6 .6 6 1 1 1 02 3 6 2 15 3 5 1 51 Nacimiento clay loam 411 2 411 611 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 4 09 -4 6 1 22 3 4 1 52 Omni silt • loam, drained 233 1 233 233 6 6 6 6 6 l 1 1 OS 5 6 4 00 0 5 1 53 Omni clay 326 1 326 326 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 04 7 6 4 25 7 5 1 54 Omni clay, drained 235 1 235 235 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 04 6 6 4 00 0 5 2 Expanded Code Descriptions, Page 12 D-3 Soils (Cont.) AGRICULTURAL BUILDING SITE z m a rHz�i�tw euvu CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Wes• z w ra CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT ri N a cs w e 60 v a •-+ d F .M a O iN Vn O �• � V Ol e7 ski OD td T1 N 4) O ou a+ ''ocao o c 9 .-1 ON ON aj cy> w w � ' 3 * ' 0= E'' "co 9.1 V a .o oG rOi ' NN-i o toQj, . M ri u H a v a AV-i a w H� �+ o o o -xn co cx P c 4 c o A w °n cww Cn 3 v 55 Pits 831 1 831 831 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0' 00 0 •0 1 56 Ramona fine • sandy .loam 311 1 311 311 1 1 4 4 6 2 1_ 1 10 1 2 2. 23 7 2 1 57 Ramona gravelly fine sandy loam 411 1 411 411, 4• 4 6 .4 6 2 1 1 10 1 2 2 22 7 2 1 58 Rincon loam 213 2 213 413 5 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 06 5 5 2 26 6 4 1 .clay 59 Riverwash 821 1 821 821 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0' 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 1 60 Rock outcrop— Cieneba complex 731 1 731 731 6. 6 6 6 6 1. 1 8 13 1 .1 1 14 1 ' 4 1 61 San Andreus sandy loam 611 1 611 611 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 5 13 1 4 4 :02 3. 2 1 62 San Emigdio fine sandy loam 100 2 100 211 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 13 1- 6. 1 22 7. 2 1 63 San Emigdio fine sandy loam, mod— erately fine sub —stratum 100 2 100 100 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1. 10 -1 6 1 17 7 2 1 64 Soboba gravelly loamy sand 631 1 631 631 6 1 1 1 1 `3 3 1 18 1 1 1- 02 7 1 1 65 Soboba cobbly loamy sand 631 1 631 631 6' 4 6 4 4 3 3 1 18 1 1 1 02 7 1 1 66 Soper loam 611 2 41i 611 6 6 6 6 6. 1 1 5 09 2 4 2 20 5 4. 1 er 67 gravelly loam 711 2 611 711 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 5 09 2 4 2 20 5 4 1 68 Soper cobbly - loam 731 1. 731 731 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 5 09 2 4 2 20 5 4 1 69 Soper=rock outcrop complex, 731 1 731 731 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 5 09 2 4 2 20 5 4 1 70 Sorrento sandy loam 100 1 100 100 4 4 4 6 4 1 1 1 10 2 6 1 21 7 2 2 1 1 71 Sorrento loam 100 2 100 211 4 4 4 6 4 1 1 1 09 2 .6 1 25 7- 72 Sorrento clay loam 100 2 100 211 4 4 4 6 6 1 1,1 09 2 6 1 23 7 2 1 Expanded Code Descriptions D-3 Soils (Con,.) Page 13 AGRICULTURAL BUILDING SITE x y PHYSICAL AND x y CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT 6 CHEMICAL PROPERTIES < d va "4 H3� HH m 41 tW o °i z v, -H m fu v w .4 +, .o u O '4 u y .0 aoi -V-4 aui -0• a 64 u C ' d ON to 41 cc M OOJ 0) C O- O~I . -H ri .' ri N 'r7 C� 4j ai � °Q -N I a -v a. 40 0. w x $ to u i -� u O .�c W c�i m �N 3 j 1 x W 0 6 0to H w w o O `� -'j DL H 4- 00 � -Hr. rz VO.1 A. 3 O C• V4 U a v d 0)O „!C to -> N O O O. O o O 'G -'1 1 r-i r-I ,-1 ri .A 'i rq t0 -H N w u 1-+ 14 O 0! JJ 6 p ti O H O k -'i N -H 0 O .O $. W as L ,-i 3 ;G co co a . of a O o. 0• a :1 o o a s.. a as ►+ .O s. o $+ o o >~ 0 F• o cc >, C) 14 a, O O � a ri x .0 � h rnE a� M cn a .w. v� U 0 73 Thapto-Histic Fluvaquents 326 1 326' 326 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 1 06 3 6-. 3 00 0 5 2 74- Tids]. flats 821 1 821 821 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 1 75 Tollbouse- Rock outcrop. complex 731 1 731. 731 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 8 17 1 1 4 14 1 5 1 76 Vista coarse . sandy loam 711 2 411 711 5 5 6 5 6 1 i 4 13 1 4 4 19 3 4 1 77 Vista - Rock outcrop outcrop complex 631 1 631 631 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 5 13 1 4 4 19 3 4 1 78 Xeralfi'c Arents,-loamy 900 -1 -900 900 2 2 5 -2 6 1 1 1 00 0 0 0 00 0 2 1 79 Xerorth6nts, loamy, cut & fill areas 900 1 900 900 6 5 6 5 6 1 1 2 00 0 -0 0 00 0 4. 1 80 Yorba gravelly sandy loam 413 2• 413 631 6 5 5 5. 6 1 1 1 06 2 2 4 11 1 5 1 81 Yorba cobbly sandy loam 731 2 631 731 6 6 6 6 6 1 .1 1 06 2 2 4 11 1 5 1 82 Yorba cobbly loam, eroded 731- 1 731 731 6. 6 6 6 6' 1 1 T 06 2 2 4 11 1 5 1 83 Water 000 0 000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Expanded Code Descriptions Page 14 D-3 Soils (font.) AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY Agricultural Capability for each soil series -is coded infourfields representing the capability rating for the predominant phase, the existence of aultiple phases 'within the series, the 'capability rating of, the highest rated phase, and that of the lowest 'rated phase, respectively. Capability• ratings (fields 1, 3, and 4) consist of three digit codes as defined below: First Digit - Capability Classes This one -digit code describes "the suitability.of soils for most -kinds of field crops, according to the limitations imposed by those soils. The code corresponds to standard SCS designations: 1 1i Class I - Soils have few limitations that.restrict their use.- 2 --Class II = Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices, or -both. 3 - Class III - Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require' special conservation practices, or both. 4 Class IV --Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. 5 - Class. V - Soils are not.likely to erode but have other limitations,. impractical to remove, that limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wild -life. (None in this survey area.) 6 Class VI - Soils have severe -limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and that limit their use largely to pas- ture or range, woodland, or wildlife. 7 - Class VII - Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and'that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. 8 - Class VIII - Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial production of crops and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife,.or water supply, or to aesthetic purposes. 9. - Unit too varied to rate. The numerals indicate -progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. Second Digit - Capability Subclasses This one digit code describes the primary limitation on a soil's capability. This limitation is characterized by adding an alpha symbol to the SCS capability rating; numerals corresponding to these are as follows: • a E Expanded Code Descriptions D-3 Soils (Cont.) 1 e - Main limitation is risk of erosion. 2 w - Water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation. 3 - s-'Soil.is limited because it is shallow, droughty, -or stony- 4 -'c - Limitation is climate that is too cold or dry. Third Digit - Capability Units Page 15 This one digit code describes the basis for inclusion of a 'so•il into a particular class and subclass; and allows grouping of soils into- groups. requiring similar management. These are designated in -the SCS system by numerical symbols following the subclass letter, as follows: 0 - A problem or limitation caused by sand and gravel in the sub - �stratum, which limits root penetration. 1 An actual or potential erosion'hazard. 2 A problem or limitation of wetness caused by poor drainage or flooding. 3 --A problem or limitation caused by.slow or very slow permeability of the subsoil or'substratum. 4 - A problem or limitation caused by coarse soil texture or excessive gravel._ 5 - A problem or limitation caused by a fine textured or very fine textured soil. 6--A,problem or limitation caused by salts or alkali. 7 - A problem or limitation caused by cobbles, stones, or -rocks.. 8 - A problem or limitation caused by nearly impervious bedrock or a hardpan within the effective -rooting depth. 9 - A problem or limitation caused by low fertility or by toxicity. (None in this survey area). This existence of multiple phases within a.series is shown by a one -digit code in field 2 as follows: 1 - Only one phase within the series. 2 - Two or.more phases/variants within the series. Expanded Code Descriptions Page 16 D-3 Soils (Copt.). BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT Limitations on development have been evaluated fo'r-four different building considerations: shallow excavation, dwellings wiihdtit'basements, small commercial buildings, and local roads and streets. Limitations on septic tank absorption fields have.also been.evaluated. Limitation ratings represent the value assigned -by SCS.to the soil phase which occupies the largest amount of acreage in the County relative to other phases within the series.. Shallow Excavations This one digit code describes'soil limitations influencing excavations for pipelines, sewerlines, communications and power transmission lines, basements, and open ditches. Codes 2, 3 and 5 represent series with a range of ratings. 1 - Slight limitation - Conditions are generally favorable for the - specified use, and- any limitation is easily overcome. 2 - Range 1 to 4 3 - Range 1 to 6 - 4 = Moderate limitation - Conditions are unfavorable for.the specified use, but limitation can be overcome or minimized by special planning or design. 5 = Range 4 to 6 6 Severe limitation - Conditions are so unfavorable or difficult -to overcome that a major increase.in construction effort, special design, or intensive maintenance is required. Dwellinst Without Basements This one digit code describes soil limitations influencing construction of dwellings no more than three stories tall on undisturbed soil,. For such structures, soils must be sufficiently stab -le that cracking or subsidence of the structure from settling or shear failure of the foundation does not occur. Codes 2, 3, and 5 represent series with a range of ratings. 1 - Slight limitation —Conditions are generally favorable for the specified use-, and any limitation is easily overcome. 2 - Range 1 to4 3 - Range 1 to 6 Expanded Code Descriptions D-3 Soils (Cont.) 4 - Moderate Limitation - Conditions are unfavorable for'the specified use, but limitations, can be overcome or minimized by special- planning 'or design. S - Range 4 to 6 6 - Severe limitation , Conditions are so unfavorable'or difficult to overcome that a -major increase in construction effort, special design, or intensive maintenace is required.. Small Commercial Buildings Page 17" This one digit code describes soil limitations influencing construction of commercial -buildings no more than three stories tall on undisturbed soil. For such structures, soils must be sufficiently s'table'that cracking or subsidence of the structure from setting or shear failure of the foundation does not occur. Codes 2; 3, and 5 represent series with a range of ratings. 1 - Slight limitation - Conditions are.generally favorable for the specified use; and any limitation is easily overcome.' 2 - Range 1 to 4- 3 - Range 1 to 6 4 - Moderate limitation - Conditions are unfavorable for the specified use, but limitations can be�overcome or minimized by special planning or design. 5 - Range 4 to 6 6 - Score limitation - Conditions are so unfavorable.or difficult to .overcome that a major increase in construction effort, special design, or intensive maintenance is required. Local Roads and Streets This -one digit code describes soil limitations influencing the construction of all-weath'er;.light to medium duty roads, graded with soil material at hand, with most cuts and fills less than six feet deep. Codes 2, 3, and 5 represent series with a range of ratings. 1 - Slight limitation - Conditions are generally favorable for the specified use, and any limitation is easily overcome. 2 - Range 1 to 4 3 - Range 1 to 6 4 - Moderate limitation - Conditions are unfavorable for the specified use, but limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning or design. 0 Expanded Code Descriptions D-3 Soils (Cont.) 5 - Range, 4 to 6 6 - Severe Limitation - Conditions are_ so unfavorable or difficult to overcome that a major increase in construction effort, special design, or intensive maintenance is required. Septic Tank Absorption Fields Page 18 Limitations on construction of sanitary facilities have been evaluated heie only for septic tank absorption fields; other considerations are included in the, SCS Soil Survey. ' Th•e one digit code expresses the limitations of the predominant soil phase within the series for construction of fields consisting of subsurface systems of til& or perforated pipe that distribute effluent from a septic tank into the natural soil at a depth of '18 to 72 inches. Codes 2, 3, and 5 represent series with a range of ratings. 1 - Slight limitation - conditions are generally favorable for the specified use, -and any limitation is easily overcome. 2 - Ranged to 4 3 - Range 1 to 6 4 - Moderate limitation - Conditions are unfavorable for the specified use, but limitations can be overcome or -minimized by special planning or design: 5 - Range 4 to 6 6 -•Severe Limitation - Conditions are so unfavorable or difficult to overcome -that .a major increase in construction effort, special design, or intensive maintenance is required. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS Soil series have been rated by SCS based upon the probability that soils in a -given area will contain sizable deposits of sand.or gravel. Source of Sand This one dig -it code expresses the potential suitability of a soil as a source for sand. 1 - Unsuitable - Soil has little potential as a source of sand. 2 - Poor - Soil contains sand, but it is in spotty deposits or contains large amounts of finer material. • 3 - Fair - Soil has 'a layer of suitable material at least 3 feet thick, the top of which is within 6 feet of the surface=; however,,, a large percentage of fine material may be included. Expanded Code Descriptions D-3 Soils (Cont.) Page 19 Source of. Gravel This one digit code expresses the potential suitability, of a soil as a source for gravel. 1 - Unsuitable - Soil has little potential' as a source .of gravel. 2 Poor - Soil contains gravel, but it is in spotty deposits or contains large amounts of finer materials. 3 = Fair - Soil has a layer•of suitable material at least 3 feet thick, *,which is -wi'thin 6 feet of the surface; however, a large percen- tage -of fine material may be -included. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL -PROPERTIES 'Seven soil properties -are evaluated: Depth - -Permeability - Shrink/Swell Potential - Corrosivity to Untreated Steel - Corrosivity to Concrete - Erosion K Factor - Erosion T Factor Depth This one digit code describes the average depth of the entire soil profile. Codes 2, 4, 6,_and 8 represent series in Which -the range of soil depth exceeds that shown within the individual classes below. 1'- Very deep - Over 60 inches 2 - Range 1 - 7 3 - Deep - 36-60 inches 4 - Range 3 to 5 5 - Moderately deep - 20-36 inches 6- Range 5 to 7 7 - Shallow 10-20 inches 8 - Range 7-9 9 - Very shallow - Less than 10 inches • i Expanded Code Descriptions D-3 Soils (Cont.) Page 20 Permeability This two digit code describes the permeability of the soil, estimated on the basis of known relationships among the soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly soil structure, porosity, and gradation or texture that influence the downard movement of water in the.soil: Codes 2, 4., 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 17 represent series with a range of permability ratings. 01 Very slow - Less than-0.06 (inches per,hour) 02 - Range 01 - 16 03 - Slow - 0.06 to 0.20 04 - Range 03 -.8 05 - Range 03 - 12 06 - Range 03 - 16 07 - Range 03 = 18 08 - Moderately slow - 0.20 to 0.80 09 -.Range .08 - 12 10 = Range 08 - 16 11 - Range 08 - 18 12 - Moderate - 0..80. to 2.50 13 - Range 12 - 16 14 - Range 12 - 18 15 - Moderately rapid.- 2.50 to 5.00 16 - Rapid - 5.00 to 10.00 17 -'Range 16 to 18 18 - Very rapid- Over '10.00' Shrink -Swell Potential This one digit code describes the expainsivity or shrink -swell potential of each soil - that quality of the soil that determines - -its volume change with change in moisture content. Codes 2, 3, and 5 represent series with a range of shrink -swell potential ratings. - Expanded Code -Descriptions D-3 Soils (Cont.) Page 21 1 Low - Soils range from sands to silt'loams with any clay mineral, and sandy clay loams if the clay is kaolinitic.. 2 - Range 1 to 4 3 Rang e 1 to 6 4 Moderate - Soils include the silty clay loam to clay textures if the clay is kaolinitic, and heavy silt losms, light sandy clays, and silty clay loams with mixed clay minerals. 5- Range 4-to 6 6- High - Soils include clay loans to clays with mixed or montmorillonitic clays. 7. - Very High Corrosivity to -Untreated- Steel This one digit code describes the. potential .'for soil -induced chemical action on untreated steel. Codes 2, 3, and 5 repr.esent series with a range .of risk ratings. 1 - Low risk of corrosion 2 --Range 1 to 4 3 - Range 1 to 6 4 - Moderate risk of corrosion 5 - Range 4 to 6 6 - High risk of corrosion Corrosivity to Concrete This one. digit code describes the potential f or soil -induced chemical action on concrete. Codes 2, 3, and 5 represent series with it range- of risk ratings. 1 - Low risk of corrosion 2 - Range 1 to 4 3 - Range 1 to 6 4 - Moderate risk of corrosion • 5- Range 4 to 6 - High risk of corrosion Expanded Code Descriptions D-3 Soils (Cont.) Page 22 Erosion K This two -digit code describes the erodibility of a soil. This factor (K). is a measure of the susceptibility of- the soil to erosion by water. R values range from 0.10 to 0.04, with soils having'the-highest K values being those most erodible. As noted below, a number of the series are represented by a range of K values. 01 = 0.10 02 = 0.15 03 = 0.15, 0.17 04 = 0.15, 017, 0.20 05 = 0.15, 0.17, 0.28, 0.49 06 = 0.17 07 = 0.17, 0.24 08 = 0.17, 0.28, 0.37 09 0.17, 0.37 10 0.20 11 = 0.20, 0.24, 0.32 12 = 0.20, 0.24, 0.43- 13 = 0.20, 0.43 14 0.24 15 = 0.24, 0.28, 0.32 16 0.24, 0.32 17 = 0.24, 0.32, 0.49 18 = 0.24, 0.43 19 = 0.28 20 = 0.28, 0.32 21 = 0.28, 0.37 22 = 0.32 - • 23 = 0.32, 0.37 0 i • Expanded Code Descriptions D-3 Soils (Cont.) 24 - 0.32, 0:43 25 - 0.37 26 - 0.37, 0.43 27 0.43 28 - 0.43, '0.49 29 0.49 Page 23 Erosion T This one digit code represents the soil -loss -tolerance factor'(T)• This is the maximum rate of soil erosion- whether from rainfall or soil blow-ing, that can occur without reducing crop production or environmental quality; and is expressed in tons of soil loss per acre per year. Codes 2 and 4 represent series with a range of T factors. 1-1ton 2 - Range 1 to 3 3 - 2 tons 4- Range 3 to 5 -- 3 -tons 6-4tons 7 - 5 tons SOIL AND WATER FEATURES Two ,soil water features have been evaluated, hydrologic group and presence of seasonal high water table. Hydrologic Group This one digit code describes hydrologic soil group, u-sed to estimate runoff from precipitation. Code 3 represents series with a range of ratings. 1 - Group A - Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. 2 - Group B - Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. Expanded Code Descriptions D-3 Soils (Cont.) 3' - Range 2 to 5 4 in Group c - Soils having a low infiltration rate when,thoroughly wet. 5 - Group D - Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential)- when thoroughly wet. Page 24 Seasonal High Water Table This one digit code incidates the existence and ,type of high water table. This is defined as the -highest level of a saturated zone more than 6 inches thick for a continuous period of more than 2 weeks during most.years. 1 - No high water table 2 - Apparent high water table 3 - Perched high water table - NOTE: A "0 " in any code except agricultural capability unit indicates that no rating has been given. 0 0 Expanded Code Descriptions MAP D-5 VEGETATION Page 25 010 Grassland - Consists mainly of introduced grasses most of which are annuals. Grasslands may contain, species of oak or walnut; however, the tree canopy is under 10 %. - Grasslands in Orange, County usually occur on hills and. low foothills, alluvial plains and disturbed areas. 020 Coastal Sage Scrub - A low - but moderately dense community of drought deciduous shrubs occurring on moderately steep to steep south and west facing slopes. Grasses and forbs are numerous within this community. - Oaks are occasionally found in the coast sage. scrub; however, density is .less than 20%. Dominant plants include California sagebrush and numerous species of Eriogonum, Salvia, Baccharis and Encelia. 021 Coast Sage Scrub -Sage - More than 75% California sagebrush. 022 Coast Sage Scrub -Mixed - A mix of Salvia, Eriogonum, Artemisia and other low shrubs with no one species truly dominating. 030 Chaparral - A dense community of needle -leafed and broad leafed evergreen sclerophylus shrubs occurring on the higher mountains of Orange County. Forbs or grass understories are rare except -in areas of fairly recent burn. Dominant shrubs include chamise, manzanita, ceanithus, and scrub oak. 031 Chamise Chaparral - Adenostoma fasciculatum (Chamise) is the dominant species. This vegetation usually occupies south and west -facing slopes in the Santa Ana Mountains just above the Coastal Sage community. 032 Mixed Chaparral - Contains Chamise, Ceanothus, Scrub Oak, Rhus, and Manzanita with no one species truly dominant. This community usually occurs in cooler and moister locations than Chamise Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub. - 040 Oak Savannah - An .area of annual grassland with 10-30 % tree cover usually, consisting of oak or walnut. Density of trees increases toward riparian Tones and towards woodlands on north facing slopes. 050 Oak Woodland/Forest - A community consisting of a tree density of over 30% usually containing Coast live oak and Walnut. The ground layer is usually grassland where the canopy is open. 'Oak woodland and forests usually occur in valley areas where the- water table is nearer the surface and on moist north and east facing slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains and Laguna Hills. • Expanded Code Descriptions D-5 Vegetation (Cont.) Page 26 051 Oak Woodland - Consists of trees occupying ->30%, but not over 70%, crown cover - with the understory usually consisting of grasses and forbs. Woodland communities usually -occur above riparian zones on cooler north facing slopes. 052 Oak Forest - A community, of trees occupying >709o' 'canopy cover typically occurring on steep north facing slopes usually above riparian habitat. 060 Riparian Woodland/Forest - Consists of trees and shrubs with an open to dense canopy. The vegetation is at or near the water table. Understory may consist of gravelly to rocky riverwash, emergent vegetation, or on " the dryer fringes, annuals may- occur. 061 Riparian Woodland - Consists of a community of trees, or shrubs with a canopy density of 30-70% -occupying the fringes of the wetter riparian forests. Riparian woodland often occurs a few meters up the slopes where. it merges with savannah vegetation. Riparian woodlands consisting of cottonwood species occur along major washes. Upstream, dominant species are oak and sycamore. 062 Riparian Forest - Consists of a community of trees with a close canopy occurring along perennial and major seasonal steams. . Understory often consists of willow and emergent vegetation. Dominant. trees include sycamore, .cottonwood, ' black willow and alder. 080 Marsh - This community is the vegetative part of the coastal estuaries; the wetter portions containing Salacorniaa-and-Spartina, with saltgrass along the drier fringes where tidal inundation does -not occur regularly. 082 Freshwater Marsh - Consists of emergent vegetation occurring along perennial streams, interspersed occasionally with pools of open water. 'Dominant plants include Typha, Scirpus, Carex, and Salix. Drier meadow communities where the watertable is not at the surface may support species of. Juncus. 090 Barren - Areas where vegetation is largely or entirely absent. If plants occur they are usually members of the surrounding community. 110 Urban/Cultural Altered - Areas in -which urban development or agriculture is the dominant feature of the landscape. Such areas include commercial, residential, industrial, and governmental complexes; agriculture of any type and pasture. 120 Water - This classification includes reservoirs, small farm ponds and natural lakes.: Flood control basins are not included in this classification unless there are areas of permanent inundation. 0 I 0 "TIF 3\ \ (/} \\ / !� BACKGROUND '1'3%J"L",:fP LvjLORT PHASE I Technical Supplement 1 0 a BACKGROUND REPORT PHASE I Prepared For City of Irvine Community Development Department Prepared By Community Planning Services El Toro, California January 1986 • CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 II STUDY METHODOLOGY .......................... 4 k IM[PLEMENTING. IV REFERENCES ................................... 23' APPENDICES A DATA AND CONSTRAINT MAPPING B MITIGATION MEASURE SOURCES C DATA CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM v • • LIST OF EXHIBITS A MEA Applications and Benefits ........................ 3 B MEA Project Team ............................... 5 CMEA Development ........................ . ...... 6 D Land Use Intensity Categories ......................... _ 11 E Development Review Process ......................... 15 4 ii 0 i 0 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This supplement discusses the technical aspects related to development of phase I of the Irvine Master Environmental Assessment (kMA). It presents the development of the various MEA components, and how these components integrate with the City'.s existing environmental and project review processes. BACKGROUND Interest in master environmental assessments among public agencies has grown over the past several years. Not only have an increased number of assessment systems been developed; but the trend toward computerized systems has increased. This trend has been facilitated by an enhanced awareness by public agencies of computers and their capabilities, and recent advancements in both hardware and software systems. One of the first, and most sophificated assessment systems was developed by the University of Illinois for use by the Army Corps of Engineers. At the local agency level, the City of Bellevue, Washington has implemented an integrated land use and environmental assessment system. And closer to home, the County of Orange has prepared a MEA covering the unincorporated areas of the county. While there are differences among these systems, a= common objective of each has been a desire to improve the management of environmental information, and to expedite the project .review process. In California, projects are required to undergo environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The provisions of CEQA are further supplemented by guidelines promulgated by the Secretary'' for Resources. According to these guidelines, a public agency may prepare an MEA in order to identify and organize envirbnmental information for an area or region. This information can then be used by the agency in the environmental evaluation of projects, and in the preparation of environmental impact reports (EIR), and negative declarations. The guidelines leave the decision to prepare a MEA, as well as the method of preparation and its' form, to the discretion of each public agency.' ' CEQA Guidelines Section 15169 0 Introduction Page 2 The City of Irvine adopted its first MEA in 1977. This. MEA was originally prepared as an Environmental Impact Report addressing the effects of the city's General Plan Amendment #4. Following adoption, the MEA was used .extensively in evaluating the environmental effects of development proposals. As time passed, and the city grew, the utility of the MEA declined as the information it contained became dated and, less relevant. Recognizing the usefulness of an MEA, a task force2 charged with assessing the city's environmental review procedures recommended in 1982 that the city's MEA be revised and updated. By 1984, the City had developed a program for the preparation of a new computerized MEA. This program envisioned the preparation occuring in two phases. Phase I would entail the design, development and preparation of all documentation. During phase II, the hardware and software would be selected, and the actual automation process completed. In late 1984, the City commissioned the firm of Community Planning Services (CPS) to complete the Phase I work program. The primary objectives established for Phase I included the following: o - Update and expand the city's environmental information base o Model environmental impacts of various land use types for each of the City's project review steps o Prepare "standard" mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse environmental effects of development proposals o Design an MEA system suitable for subsequent automation An overview of Phase II is presented in Section II of this report. The City expects to complete Phase II once Phase I has been fully implemented. APPLICATIONS AND BENEFITS As an analytical tool, the MEA is expected to be of benefit .to, a wide range of users including members of the city council, commissions, residents, to and city staff. Table A identifies each of these user groups, how they might apply the MEA, and the resulting benefits. As the primary user, city staff will find the most applications. for the system, and receive the majority of the benefits. Several of these benefits will be enhanced through system automation planned as part of phase H. • a 2 Community Development Task Force, CEQA Subcommittee EXHIBIT A MEA APPLICATIONS AND BENEFITS APPLICATIONS BY USER Council/Commissions City Staff Residents Developers o During consideration of project proposals and associated environmental documents o During environmental policy consideration Council/Commissions o Promotes uniform policy guidance on.environmental issues o Facilitates attainment of community goals and objectives • o During initial study analysis o During preparation of neg- ative declarations and en- vironmental'impact reports o As input during prepara- tion of community plans o In evaluating other agency's projects and en- vironmental documents o In reviewing development proposals, and associated environmental documents BENEFITS BY USER City Staff o Enhances knowledge of the area's environmental re- sources and constraints o Reduces time needed to evaluate a project's effects and prepare mitigation measures o Promotes evaluation of cumulative effects o Fosters consistency in envi- ronmental evaluation, and mitigation strategies o Enhances coordination among city departments and other agencies Residents o Enhances knowledge of the area's resources and constraints o Promotes increased under- standing of the city's envi- ronmental review process and policies o Helps protect quality of life o Reduces cost of environ- mental review for public projects o During project planning Developers o Promotes understanding of the city's resources and en- vironmental policy require- ments o Expedites the project review process by focusing on.: project specific issues 0 H STUDY METHODOLOGY THE PROJECT TEAM Phase I of the MEA was prepared over the course of several months by a team of environmental planners assisted by technical consultants with expertise regarding specific environmental issues. This team was augmented by key staff members from various divisions within the Department of Community Development. The primary individuals participating on the team are listed in Exhibit B. PHASE I DEVELOPMENT 41 Development of the MEA involved completion of nine tasks. These tasks, and, their relationship to one another, are illustrated in the flow diagram shown in Exhibit C. Each of these tasks is discussed separately below. Task 1 Acquisition and Evaluation of Existing Environmental Data At the outset of the project, the consultant team acquired and inventoried all relevant environmental resource and constraint data available for Irvine's planning area. Sources consulted included the City of Irvine, County of Orange, The Irvine Company, :Irvine Ranch Water District, various special districts, State and Federal agencies, and local organizations, such as the Irvine Historical Society. Information not available locally was acquired by the consultant team. Once assembled, this information was catalogued by type, geographic coverage, scale, source, publication date and availability. The information was then evaluated to identify outdated data, conflicts among sources, and gaps in geographic coverage. Areas where further additional data were needed, were flagged for supplemental analyses in subsequent tasks. The documents acquired, and inventory prepared was presented to city staff at the conclusion of the study for their use in updating the MEA. . EXHIBIT B MEA PROJECT TEAM City Staff Mr. Ed Moore, AICP Environmental Services Division Principal Planner Mr. Dain Anderson, Environmental Services Division Senior Planner Mr. Mike Thiele, Planning Services Division Principal Planner Mr. Steve Haubert, Planning Services Division Senior Planner Consultants Mr. Tom Miner, Community Planning Services (CPS) Principal Mr. Eric Hernden, Aerial Information Services (AIS). Principal Ms. Janet Reyes Aerial Information Services Senior Analyst Mr. Steve Nelson, Nelson Biological Consulting Biologist Mr. Rod Raschke, RMW Paleo.Associates. Paleontologist Ms. Beth Padon, Larry Seeman Associates Archaeologist • A EXiiiBIT C MEA DEVELOPMENT PROCESS PHASE I MODEL CONSTRAINTS PREPAREIMPACT .MODEL A ACQUIRE AND EVALUATE EXISTING DATA DEFINE SYSTEM COMPONENTS COMPLETE SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES PREPARE MAPS INTREGRATE SYSTEM' COMPONENTS COMPLETE USERS MANUAL, MAP ATLAS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS PUBLIC REVIEW DEVELOP CODING SYSTEM FORMULATE MITIGATION MEASURES MEA PHASE II 0 i 0 Study Methodology Task 2 System Definition Page 7 This task focused upon selection of the environmental topics to be include in the NSA, and how the information would-be classified within each topic. The primary objective of this task was to ensure that 1) all critical environmental topics were included, and 2) extraneous information not satisfying a clearly identified need was eliminated. Based on the project team's analysis, the following subjects were ultimately selected for inclusion in phase I. Geologic Hazards Flood/Dam Inundation Hazards Fire Hazards Agricultural Capability Water Resources Biotic Resources Sand and Gravel Resources Historical Resources Archaeological Resources Paleontological Resources Aircraft'Noise and Crash Hazards Roadway and Railroad Noise Special Districts Once the subjects to be included were deemed, an explicit data classification system was developed. This classification system was -used to organize the environmental information within each of the selected environmental topics. This system would guide later activities, including the mapping effort. Criteria used to define the classification system included consideration of 1) the City.'s established environmental objectives and policies, 2) the format and availability.of existing data, 3) map preparation and maintenance costs, and 4) compatibility of the City's MEA with the system adopted by the County of Orange. To ensure broad based input into the classification process,, potential users were contacted to identify their speck needs. Because of its length, the classification system has been included separately as Appendix C. Task 3 Supplemental Studies Preparation_ The consultant team completed supplemental technical studies where earlier tasks had determined existing environmental information was either lacking, or inadequate in its present form, and the information was deemed critical in the development of the MEA. Three separate studies were completed addressing biotic, archaeologic, and paleontologic resources. The scope of each study was tailored to the MEA's specific data requirements. Study Methodology Page 8 The information obtained through these studies greatly enhances the City's overall knowledge regarding the occurrence and value of these resources within the city's planning area. The utility of this informationextends beyond the MEA, and it is already finding important applications in association with a proposed revision to the Conservation Element of the City's General Plan. The supplemental studies are included in the MEA as Technical Supplements 2, 3, and 4, and are on file with the City of Irvine. The reader is referred to each study for information beyond that provided in the MEA User's Guide and Map Atlas. Task 4 Data and Constraint Map. Preparation The data collected in the earlier phases of the study were mapped during this task according to the classification system developed under task 2. The first step was the preparation of a cartographically accurate base map for the study area. Selection of the base map scale was an important consideration, and included consideration of 1) consistency with existing environmental data, 2) compatibility with the city's general plan mapping system, and 3) legibility of the maps in their pre -automated form. Based upon these criteria, a scale of 1:24,000, or 1" = 2000' was -selected. Six USGS 7.5 topographic quadrangle maps cover the study area: _ El Toro Black Star Tustin- San Juan Laguna Beach Orange These quadrangles were photographically combined to produce a single map encompassing the entire planning area. This map was then reproduced on a stable mylar base. Boundaries of the study area were drawn on the base map using administrative and planning boundary information provided by the city. Once the base map was completed, the next step was to assemble and rescale, where necessary, the environmental data to be used to compile each of the data and constraint maps. Resealing was -accomplished via an optical/manual technique. This procedure involved the use of an optical pantograph, an instrument similar to a rear screen projector which is used to project an enlarged or reduced image onto a drafting surface. Using the pantograph, the image is first brought to the proper scale by projecting it onto a transparent mylar copy of the base map, and then matching locations of recognizable Study Methodology Page 9 linear. or point features with known locations on the base map. The image is then transferred manually onto translucent drafting film. The specific device used in conjunction with the- MEA was a ME kargl reflecting projector, with an overall distortion of less than 0.01 percent. Not all of the information needed for the study had been previously mapped in a satisfactory format. In these cases, the data had to be photo -interpreted. Aerial photos were used, and included high altitude Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS) color infrared imagery, and low level black and white photography at a nominal scale of 1:24,000. The features mapped were plotted by drafting lines on a piece of transparent acetate fastened to the imagery while it, and the adjacent photos, were viewed in stereo. Once delineations were made, the data was transferred onto the base maps using the pantograph. Use of the base map in the process ensured not only that the- photo - interpreted information was drawn to the scale of 1:24,000, but also provided a means for correcting the distortion inherent in stereo photo pairs. The product of this effort. was a uniform, set of twenty four environmental data and constraint maps, with minimum mapping resolution of 5 acres. The original maps are available for use by city staff at a scale of 1"=2000'. Because . the size of these maps makes their use somewhat cumbersome, a reduced set of maps has been published for use 'in phase I and are included in the.. Map Atlas. These maps are reproduced at a more manageable scale of 1"= 6000' (11" by 1711). Appendix A has been prepared to assist the city in maintaining these maps in a current status. This appendix includes the sources of. the data for each map, and the method -of preparation. Task 5 Impact Model Development Impact models were developed to identify -potential environmental effects of various land uses. The purpose of these models was not to identify specific environmental impacts, but instead to provide a means by which to associate potential environmental impacts with proposed mitigation measures. The consultant team completed a series of matrices to analyze the potential impacts resulting from different land use types. Each of the City's General Plan land use categories was tested against each of the resource and constraint categories defined during Task 2. This effort revealed that impacts were influenced more by the intensity of development than by the specific type of land use. In other words, whether a project was industrial, commercial, or residential is less important than its overall intensity. This Study Methodology Page 10 conclusion lead to development of the five Iand use impact intensity categories shown in Exhibit D. Each of the categories is explained below. The No Impact category is restricted to certain types of open space uses.. Because these uses would maintain the natural conditions of a site, they would be expected to have no appreciable adverse environmental impacts, and have not been considered further in the The low, medium, and high intensity categories reflect a range in intensity encompassing the most commonly used land use designations found in the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Uses within these three categories are potentially affected by environmental hazards, and also can be expected to result in impacts on environmental resources. The Special intensity category was established- to recognize uses with low human habitation. These uses are not importantly influenced by hazard considerations, but their development may nevertheless result in substantial effects on a number, of sensitive earth based resources. To'evaluate the effect -of alternative intensity groupings on the MEA output, the consultant team completed a -sensitivity analysis. This analysis showed only slight changes in model output when a land use was shifted one intensity category within the low to high range. The reader can verify this through a detailed examination of the MEA impact models and mitigation measures. Task 6 Mitigation Measures Preparation The consultant team formulated mitigation measures for each of the environmental constraint topics. This task was completed concurrently with the development of the impact models so that as potential impacts were identified, measures were developed to address the identified impacts. The actual mitigation measures were formulated based upon a comprehensive inventory of existing City policies and regulations, a review of state and federal laws, appropriate technical literature, recognized environmental criteria, and interviews - with the individuals from other public :. agencies and ,environmental planning firms. A draft of each measure was reviewed by city staff, and appropriate representatives of other organizations and agencies to assure that the proposed measures were considered feasible, and all reasonable measures had been included. The environmental policy inventory completed in support of this task is included in Appendix B. City staff will find it useful in confirming, the currency of the mitigation measures during future updates. Other sources consulted during this task are also documented in Appendix B. EXHIBIT D LAND USE IMPACT INTENSITY CATEGORIESW No Impact Open Space(2) Wildlife habitat Wildlife Reserve Water Low Rural Density Residential ' (<0.1 Dwelling Units/Acre) Estate Density Residential (0.1 to 1.0 Dwelling Units/Acre) Medium Low Density Residential (1.0 to <5.0 Dwelling UnitslAcre) " Medium Density Residential (5.0 to <10 Dwelling UnitslAcre) High Meduim High Density Residential (10 to 25 Dwelling UnitslAcre) High Density Residential (25 to 40 Dwelling UnitslAcre) Airport Multi-Use(3) Commercial - Industrial Landfill Sand and Gravel Operations Institutional Special Open Space(2) _ General Cementary Agriculture Regional Park Community Park Nature Center Roadway Projects 1 Land use categories adapted from the Irvine General Plan Land Use Element 2 This category has been subdividdd due to the wide range of uses included. 3 Mixed or multi use projects must consider each use separately. Study Methodology Page 12' The mitigation. measures included in the MEA can be divided into two categories. One, referred to as decision criteria, include specific standards, or planning policies, to which projects are expected to comply. These measures have been keyed to the level of project review at which the decision criteria should be applied. In many cases, these measures may apply to more than one level of review. Where this is the case, the measures are identified at each level in the impact models. The following is an example of a decision criteria measure. All stationary emission sources shall comply with the regulations- adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The second mitigation category includes compliance notification measures. These are intended to notify an applicant that speck mitigation requirements must be met at a subsequent level of project review. These measures can be easily distinguished by an introductory phrase which begins "Prior to -- ." These measures are generally keyed to the level of review immediately preceding the level of review at which compliance would be required. An exception applies to measures associated with- concept plan. This is because 1) many projects may not require a general plan amendment (the normal compliance notification point -for concept plans); and 2) conditions of approval (mitigation measures) are frequently not adopted in association with general plan amendments, thus the requisite preceding review level is not consistently available for adoption -of the notification measures. Consequently, these measures have been written to provide both notification and compliance during concept plan review. Finally, each mitigation measure was coded according to the primary constraint topic to which it relates, i.e., Geologic Resources (C-1): 1.1, 1.2, etc. Task 7 System Components Integration The above tasks resulted in the development of the individual components of phase I of the MEA.. These components were integrated during this task to form* a coherent assessment system which could be used temporarily in a manual form until system automation was completed. The objective of this task was to establish a. system which focused on increasing the efficiency of the environmental review process, and which could be put to immediate use by each of the intended user groups identified in Exhibit A. The system arrived at • includes a Users Manual and Map Atlas, plus supporting technical documentation for use by those in need of additional background information. The Users Manual"and Map Atlas Study Methodology Page 13 are the primary system components and contain all of the elements needed to use the. system under phase I. It should be noted that because the MEA has been designed and structured for automation, its manual implementation can not fully exploit the system's benefits in terms of improving the efficiency of the environmental review process, or ease of use. Task 8 System Documentation This task included preparation, and publication of the User's Guide, Map Atlas, and 'technical supplements. As part of this task, the consultant team also conducted two training sessions for city staff in the use of the MEA. Task 9 Public Review Process -The final task of phase I is intended to provide ' the public, and other agencies an opportunity to review and comment on the MEA. Both the User's Guide and Map Atlas were distributed for consideration. Revisions to the documents will be made based upon the comments received. The MEA will be presented to the Irvine City Council for consideration following- the public review period. Once approved by the city, the MEA will be implemented as discussed in the next section. 0 IMPLEMENTING THE MEA OVERVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Development proposals in Irvine are required to undergo both project and environmental review. The project review process is a decision -making system established by the city to ensure the community grows in a desirable and orderly fashion. In accordance with this process, each, development proposal must undergo several levels of review before final approval is granted to proceed with actual construction. This multi -level review process is depicted in Exhibit E. As Exhibit E shows, development review begins at the general plan level, where project proposals are considered at the conceptual planning stage, and proceeds through subsequent levels of review where more detailed plans are scrutinized. Each review is founded on the assumptions, allowances and limitations of preceding. approvals. The process concludes when construction approvals are granted. The primary documents governing each step in the decision making process are also shown in Exhibit E. Typically, these documents define- the manner of the review, as well as the planning criteria by which projects are evaluated. Of particular note here, is the general plan. This document establishes policies intended for implementation over a wide range of project review levels. The environmental review process is intended to supplement the project review process. It is essentially an information system designed to inform the public and decision -makers of the environmental consequences of development proposals as they proceed through .the project review process. This process is established by the state under the .California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. It is -implemented by the�city of Irvine through locally adopted implementation guidelines (City of Irvine CEQA Procedures). Procedurally, these regulations require that the city complete an initial study to determine a project's environmental effects at each discretionary level of project review (See Exhibit E). If the analysis -shows that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, the city must prepare an Environmental- Impact Report (EIR) addressing the significant effects, mitigation measures and project alternatives. If on the other hand, the • L, i 0 EXHIBIT E PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS Project Primary Definition Review Process Governing Regulations General General Plan Amendment, General Plan Concept Plan, Zoning Ordinance, General plan Change of Zone, Zoning Ordinance, General Plan Tentative Map/Parcel.Map' Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Manual Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance Conditional Use Permit, Zoning Ordinance Code Compliance/ Zoning Ordinance Specific Discretionary level of review. Zoning Determination Grading Permit, Grading Ordinance Building Permits Uniform Building Code Certificate of Occupancy Uniform Building Code Implementing the MEA Page 16 analysisdemonstrates that the project's effects will not be significant, the city prepares a Negative Declaration. To augment the established procedures, the city has adopted an Environmental Review Matrix. This document assists city staff by identifying the type environmental information required at each stage of the city's project review process. INTEGRATING THE MEA WITH EXISTING PROCESSES This section discusses how the MEA integrates with the existing environmental and project review processes outlined above. It is organized according to the four principal user groups identified in Exhibit A. As discussed in Section I, each user will have a somewhat different application for the MEA. Emphasis here is on the primary .user: city staff. For the actual steps involved in_ using the system, refer to the User's Guide. While not discussed in this section, the consultant team has suggested revisions to city ordinances, policies and procedures, necessary to assure full implementation of the MEA in the context of the city's current project and environmental regulations -and procedures. These recommendations have been forwarded to the city under separate cover. Developers The primary use of the MEA by developers during a project's planning and design stages. Because the MEA reflects adopted environmental policy, it is expected that project applicants will consult the MEA 'in the same manner that they would consider .other important planning documents, such as the city's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The MEA can play an important role in shaping a project's design before it reaches the point of formal submittal to the city. As a centralized source of environmental information and policy, it can serve as an important element during a project's conceptual design. Typically projects are planned by a multi -disciplinary team. In this context, the MEA can serve as a common source of officially adopted constraint information and planning criteria for use by members of the project team. Because the MEA spans all of the project review levels from General Plan to construction permits, and because it provides mitigation measures associated with each, the developer can proceed with project planning beyond the current application with some certainty, as to the environmental issues and expectations of the city. Implementing the MEA City Staff Page 17 At the staff level, the MEA will be used, in association with 1) initial study analysis, 2) preparation of negative declarations and environmental impact reports, 3) formulation of project recommendations and conditions of approval, 4) review of other agency's environmental documents, and 5) preparation of various planning studies. Each of these applications is discussed further below. It is anticipated that the staff of the Environmental Services Division will have primary responsibility for the majority of these activities. Specific procedures to implement the MEA at the staff level will be established by the Director of Community Development. Initial Studies: As. an environmental planning and analysis tool, the MEA is intended for use as an integral component of the initial study process. CEQA requires the completion of an initial study for every project at each discretionary level of review (See Exhibit E). The city's CEQA Procedures Manual, Section 5, governs how the initial study is to be conducted. In accordance with these procedures, - the staff members utilize an Environmental Analysis form to evaluate a project's environmental effects, and document the conclusions of the analysis. The MEA will assist staff in this evaluation process. First, it provides a central source of current environmental information which can be used to identify the environmental resources and constraints which apply to a particular project site. Second, the MEA identifies established environmental criteria against which to judge the potential environmental effects of the project. Third, it identifies mitigation measures which can be used to reduce or avoid any potential adverse impacts. Since the MEA considers all levels of project review, the environmental planner has ready access to a broad spectrum of mitigation measures. Thus, he is not only able to identify those measures which are relevant to the current level of'review, but also those. associated with all preceding. and succeeding levels as well. The ability to identify a coherent mitigation package for implementation at each . stage of the review process is expected to. lead to an increased use of negative declarations, and environmental impact reports focused more on project specific issues. Thus, in most cases the mitigation measures included in the MEA would normally be expected to mitigate a project's potential adverse effects to insignificant levels (for those topics addressed in the MEA). A project may, however, present unique or,unusual issues which can not be foreseen by the MEA. Such issues are deal with through the inclusion of measures which provide a framework for identifying and implementing project speck measures. This approach 1 An initial study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the lead agency to determine whether an EIR or a negative must be prepared or to identify the significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR. Implementing the MEA Page 18 assures the appropriate analysis will be completed, .and that specific measures will be given timely consideration during.the initial study. Negative Declaration and EIR Preparation: Where staff concludes, as a result of the initial study, that a Negative Declaration is appropriate, the mitigation measures identified through use of the MEA can easily be appended to the Negative Declaration form as required by the CEQA Guidelines:. If an EIR is necessary to address the environmental effects of' a project, the MEA provides environmental information and mitigation measures which can be incorporated directly into the EIR. This should permit - those preparing the EIR to concentrate their analysis on the unique aspects of the -project at hand. Formulation of Project Recommendations and Conditions of Approval. The decision criteria included in the MEA will assist the staff of the Planning Services Division in their evaluation of the appropriateness of projects which come before them. Additionally, the compliance notification measures are provided in a form which, in many cases, will permit their use as conditions of project approval without modification. With each measure keyed to a specific level of project review, staff will always know which measures are typically applied at each step in the review process. The task of preparing staff reports is also expected to be less time consuming with each of .the "standard" mitigation measures readily available on the city's word processing equipment. Review of Other Agencies' Environmental Documents: The City of Irvine is frequently call upon to consider the information and analyses .included in the environmental documents of other agencies. Where the city has a decision making role in these projects, its responsibility in the review process is governed by 'the city's CEQA Procedures, Section 10. The environmental information contained in the MEA, and its mitigation measures will assist staff in focusing attention _ on the environmental issues . important to the City of Irvine. In many cases, the MEA will suggest specific mitigative wording which staff can forward to the lead agency for incorporation in the environmental document, and use as conditions of project approval. City Planning Studies: In the normal course of their duties, the Community Development Department staff prepares numerous -planning studies .and analyses. Many of these studies require consideration of environmental issues. In these instances, use of the MEA and its relevance to the study will be dictated by the particular needs and objectives of each study. It should be noted that the MEA is already serving as important input to a study currently involving the Conservation Element- of the General Plan. Implementing the MEA City Council and Commissions Page 19 The primary use of the MEA by members of the City Council and Commissions will likely be in association with their consideration of - development- proposals, and corresponding environmental documents. Through reference to the User's Guide and Map Atlas, the MEA can serve as source of current environmental information, and a means of conforming compliance with the city's adopted environmental objectives and policies. Since the MEA provides a compendium -of adopted environmental, policies, it also establishes a reference point from which members of the Council and Commissions can monitor and reevaluate the continued appropriateness' of these policies. These uses will be implemented in an informal manner, with the frequency of use dependent upon the individuals and circumstances involved. Residents Irvine residents with an interest in a particular development proposal will. now have a central source of environmental- resource information which - they, can refer to in considering the environmental merits of a development proposal. Copies of the phase I User's Guide and Map Atlas will be available for reference at the Irvine City Hall, and public library branches. Copies are also available at the Department of Community Development for purchase by residents. LIMITATIONS OF PHASE I While the MEA is considered an important and useful element in the city's_ overall planning and environmental processes, it is appropriate to point out its limitations as well. For example, it must be remembered that while a. major effort, has been devoted to preparing a comprehensive document the system is intended only to assist the user. It is not intended as a pure "cookbook" approach to environmental ' analysis. For example, while the mitigation measures proposed by the-MEA may be applicable in most cases, circumstances related to a specific project should dictate whether a particular measure is modified to fit the project, or perhaps not applied at all. In some cases, MEA measures may need to be expanded, or additional measures added. These adjustments are appropriately handled by the city staff during .the initial study analysis. Another limitation relates to the number of environmental topics included under phase I. While a broad range of issues are addressed, topics such as traffic and circulation, public services, energy, and hazardous materials have not been included. Until the MEA is • expanded to include these areas, staff must continue to be addressed them separately during the initial study analysis without the assistance of the MEA. 0 li • Implementing the MEA UPDATING Page 20 If the MEA is to be useful, it is imperative it be kept current. Because the MEA incorporates a substantial- amount of information, constant vigilance by staff will be required. Consequently,. it is recommended that a careful review of the MEA be completed every six months with updates prepared as warranted. The following MEA features will facilitate keeping the MEA current: L. The sources of all data used in the mapping process, and the methods of map preparation, have been carefully documented (Refer to Appendix A). 2. Preparation and revision dates are included on all maps, impact models and mitigation measures -to assure currency. 3. An inventory of existing environmental policy documents used in preparation of the mitigation measures is provided (Refer to Appendix B). Additionally, the sources of all mitigation measures have been identified in parenthesis following each measure. 4. The text, impact models and mitigation measures have been prepared on word processing equipment compatible with that used by the city. Thus, revisions can be- made easily. 5. The User's Guide and Map Atlas will be printed in a three ring notebook format to permit easy replacement of pages. PHASE II Phase II is expected to provide efficiencies in the application of the MEA through . development of a computerized data base management system. The system currently envisioned will permit a user to enter a project's location and general characteristics into a computer terminal, and have tle program search through the applicable environmental categories and list, or print, the appropriate mitigation measures. As an option the user may also have the computer print portions of individual data or constraint maps,. or prepare composite constraint maps covering the project site or entire-MEA study. _ Three primary tasks support completion of phase H. They are discussed here simply to provide an overview of the work necessary. to automate the MEA. Refinement of these tasks is expected at the time the city is actually prepared to proceed with phase H. Implementing the MEA Task 1 Select Hardware and Software Systems Page 21 The Community Development and Administrative Services Departments will research and evaluate alternative hardware and software systems for selection and acquisition. Emphasis would be placed on use of existing city equipment and "off the shelf' software programs which are cost effective and readily available. The city may choose to retain an outside systems analyst to assist staff with this task. Task 2 System Programming and Input Development of application programs will need be completed to adapt the acquired software for use with the MEA. Once this is completed, a geo-based grid or polygon format will be defined, computer. files containing the MEA data created and edited, and the system tested. Task 3 Documentation and Training As a final task, documentation for the automated system will to be prepared, and staff trained in the use and maintenance of the system. 41 FURTHER SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS As the MEA demonstrates its value, ways will likely be suggested to further enhance the system.. Some of these potential enhancements have already come to light in association with development of phase L They are briefly discussed below. Inclusion of Additional Environmental Topics As noted under the discussion on limitations, not all environmental issues are included in the current version of the MEA. Future revisions should give consideration to adding as many of these issues as is practical. Additional Analysis of Existing MEA Topics While the MEA provides substantial environmental information regarding the area's resources, additional analysis would further enhance the utility of the system. As an example, a comprehensive survey of historical resources; including an evaluation of tenant farm homes, would be useful. Inclusion of helicopter flight corridors, and new roadway noise contours currently under preparation, should also be considered during future updates. i Implementing the MEA 0' - Inclusion of Planning Issues • Page 22 The MEA establishes a system which could readily be expanded to include additional land use planning issues. Such a system is currently, under preparation by the city of Bellevue, Washington. Under such a system, all of the city's land use planning policies, regulations, and adopted conditions of project approval could be automated. Such a system would provide a user with immediate access to all relevant land use regulations and planning policies for a specific project proposal. As a minimum, development standards should be considered for. incorporation during a subsequent update, once the city fias clearly defined its overall planning data base objectives. L-1 in REFERENCES Aircraft Environmental Support Office; Naval Air Support Facility, 1977. Noise Monitoring MCAS (Hi Santa Ana, California, North Island, CA. Anderson, J. R., Hardy, E. E., Roach, L T., and Witmer, R. E., 1976. A Land Use and Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973. Major Earthquakes and Recently Active Faults in the Southern California Region. Scale 1" = 20 miles. California Division of Forestry. Fire Hazard Severity Classification System for California Wildlands. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974. Geology of the South Half of the El Toro Quadrangle Orange County, California. Special Report 110. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1976. Environmental Geology of Orange County, California. open Fire Report 79-81A. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1981. Mineral Land Classification of Greater Los Angeles Area, Part III. Classification of Sand and Gravel Resources Areas, Orange County - Temescal Valley Production - Conservation Region. Special Report 143. California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation,1979. California Historical Landmarks, Sacramento, CA. Christiansen and Associates, 1971. Master Plan. of Drainage for Laguna Canyon, San Juan Capistrano, CA. City of Irvine, 1975. Historical. Archaeological and Paleoniological Policy and Program. City of Irvine, 1984. Paleontological Survey Records File. City of Irvine, 1985. General Plan, including all elements City of Irvine, 1985. California Environmental Quality Act Procedures. City of Irvine, 1985. Zoning Ordinance. 0 i 0 References Page 24 City of Irvine, 1980. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panels 1-7. National Flood Insurance Program. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. City of Orange, 1978. General Plan, Seismic Safety Element; Orange, CA. Community Planning Services, 1983. Environmental Review Matrix. Prepared for the City of Irvine. Corps of Engineers, 1969. Flood. Plain Information Report In Laguna. Canyon, Washington D.C. Corps of Engineers, 1972. Flood Plain Information Report for San Diego Creek and Peter's Canyon Wash, Washington, D.C. Corps of Engineers, 1973. Survey Report for Flood Control: Laguna Canyon, Orange County. California, Washington, D.C. Corps of Engineers, 1974. Flood Plain Information: Tributaries- of Upper San Diego Creek, Orange County, California, Washington D.C. Corps of Engineers, 1974. Flood Plain Information Report for Upper Peters Canyon 'Wash, Washington, D.C. County of Orange, Planning Department, 1968. Historical Landmarks of Orange County, Santa Ana, CA. County of Orange, 1969. Historical Landmarks of Orange County. Orange County Planning Department, Santa Ana, CA. County of Orange, 1970. Proposed Increments of a Master Plan of Drainage for the Unincorporated Areas of Orange County, California, Plate 1. Dwg. no.;-Misc. - 106- 41. Scale 1"-2 miles. County of Orange, 1973. Slone Stability. Report, Santa Ana, CA: County of Orange, Flood Control District, 1974. Primary Facilities and Drainage Areas, Scale 1"-8000' County of Orange, 1977a. A Report on Cultural/Scientific Resources. for County of Orange. Cultural/Scientific Resources: Policy Task Force, .Santa Ana, CA. County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 1976. Hdrology Report, San 1 Joaquin Channel Facility N. F14, Entire Drainage System, Santa Ana, CA. County of Orange, 1976. Fire Protection Planning Task Force Report. References County of Orange,1979. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Route Location Study, Environmental Impact Report # 267. Page 25 County of Orange, 1983. Foothill Transportation Corridor, Final Environmental Impact Report # 423. County of Orange, 1984. John Wayne Airport Master Plan and Santa Heights Land Use Compatibility Program. Final Environmental Impact Report # 508. County of Orange, No Date. Noise Element of the General Plan. Ultimate Noise Contours. County of Orange,. Office of Emergency Services, 1978. Evacuation Plan for Areas Below Dams. Santa Ana, CA. Division of Mines and Geology,1976a. Active Fault Mavping and Evaluation Program. Special Publication 47. Sacramento CA. Division of Mines and Geology, 1976b. Geology and Engineering Geolo .ig'c Aspects of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California. Special Report 27. Sacramento, CA. E.L. Pearson and Associates, 1969. Master Plan of Drainage for the El -Modena - Irvine Area, Newport Beach, CA. El Toro USMCAS, 1980. El Toro APZ. Scale 1"=2000'. Evans, Goffman, & McCormick, 1973. and East of JeffreyRoad. Santa Ana, CA. Federal Law, 1906. The Antiquily Act of 1966. (Public Law 59-209, 34 stat. 225; -16 U.S.C. 431-433), Washington, D.C. Federal Law, 1935. The Historic Sites Act of 1935, (Public Law 74-292, 49 stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461-467), Washington D.C. Federal Law 1960. The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960. (Public Law 86-523, 74 stat. 220; 16 U.S.C. 469-469c), Washington D.C. Federal Law 1966. The Historic Preservation Act of 1966. (Public Law 89-665, 80 stat. 915; 16 U.S.C. 470), Washington D.C. Federal Law 1969. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Executive Order 11593 (Public Law 209), Washington, D.C. References Page 26 Federal Law 1974. The National Archaeological/Historical Preservation Act of 1974, (Public Law.93-291, 88 stat. 174; 16 U.S.C. 469-a-1 et seq.), Washington, D.C. Frederick, D. G., and Anderson, K. Eric, 1983. The Collection and Analysis of Natural Resource Data in the 1980's: Fifth International Symposium on Computer -assisted CartographX. Crystal City, Virgina. Friis, L.J., 1965. Orange County Through, Four Centuries,, -Pioneer Press, Santa Ana, CA. Geotechnical Survey, 1973. Geohydrology and Artificial Recharge Potential of the Irvine Area, Orange County, California. Washington, D.C. Goldman, Harold B., 1968. Sand and Gravel in California, an Inventory of Deposits. Part C--Southern California. California Division of Mines -and Geology, Bulletin 190-C. Scale 1:500,000. Guptill, S, C.,1978. "The Impact of Computer Graphics, Data Manipulation Software, and Computing Equipment on Spatial Data Structures," First International Advanced Study Symposium on Topological Data Structures for Geographic Information Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Irvine Blue Ribbon Committee, 1982. Report of the City's East Irvine Blue Ribbon Committee. Interagency Fire Prevention Group, 1978. Fire Safety Considerations for Developments in Forested Areas - A Guide for Planners. and Developers. Portland, Oregon. Kuchler, A. W., 1967. Vegetation Mapping. "The Ronald Press Company. Lowry Engineering -Science, 1971. A Preliminary Investigation of the Feasibility of Providing Works of Improvement within San Diego Creek Watershed in'Orange County, California, Santa Ana, CA. Meadows, Don,1975. Irvine - A City on Rancho San Joaquin, The First National Bank of Orange County, Costa Mesa, CA. Mitchell, W. B., et. al., 1977. GIRAS -- A Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System for Handling Land Use and Land Cover Data: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1059. Morton, P.K. and Miller, R.V., 1973. Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County, California, CDMG Preliminary Report 15, Sacramento, CA. O'Neal, Stephen, 1985. Letter dated November 21 regarding historical sites in the Irvine planning area. References Page 27 Oppenheimer, Carl H_., 1983. Environmental Data Management, Plenum Press, New York and London. Ploessel et.al.,1972. Seismic Environment of the Southern California Coastline I: Palos Verdes to Dana Point. (preprint) Dallas, Texas. Poland, J.F. et.al., 1956. Groundwater Geology -of the Coastal Zone Long Beach, Santa Ana Area, California, U.S.G.S. Water Supply Paper 1109, Washington, D.C. RBF, 1973. Master Plan of Drainage for the East Irvine Area, Irvine, CA. R. Dixon Speas and Associates, Inc., 1976a. Air In Compatible Use Zone Study, WAS El Toro, prepared for Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Los Angeles, CA. R. Dixon Speas and.Associates, Inc., 1976b. Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, MCAS (H) Santa Ana, prepared for Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Los Angeles, CA. Robertson, Willian Laughlin, 1984. Wildlife Ecology and Management. Macmillan, New York, Selden, D. D., and Domaratz, M. A., 1983. "Digital Map Generalization and Production Techniques"; Fifth International Symposium on Computer Assisted Cartography. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1976. Source Receptor, Areas. Scale 1"=8 . miles. State of California, No Date., California Administrative Code, Title 14, State Division of Beaches and Parks. Section 4307 - Archaeological Features, Section 4309 - Special Permits. State of California, No. Date., Public Resources Code: California Environmental Quality Apt Section 2100 et seq. State of California, Coastal Commission,1977. Interpretative Guidelines, Sacramento . CA. State of California, No Date. Administrative Code, Title 25 Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4, Section 1092, "Noise Insulation Standards." State of California, Department of Water Resources, 1967: Progress Report.Geology of the Coastal Plain of Orange County. Sacramento, CA. Soil Conservation Service, 1976. Soil Survey of Orange and Western Part of Riverside 0 Counties. California. An Interim Report, Washington, D.C. 0 • References Page 28 Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers, Inc., 1968. A Reconnaissance Investigation of Soil and Geologic Conditions, San Joaquin Hills Coastal Area, Newport Beach, CA. State of California, 1973. The California History Plan, Volume II. -State of California, 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources.. The Irvine Company, 1976. A Travelers Guide to the Historic Sites on the Irvine Ranch (northern half). Newport Beach, California. The Irvine Company, 1978. Land Use Information, System, Newport Beach, CA. Toups Incorporated, 1973a. A Master Plan -of Drainage for the Central Irvine Ranch Area. Santa Ana, CA. University of Illinois, 1984. Introduction to ETIS and its Subsystems. ETIS Support .Center, Urbana, Illinois. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976. Environmental Impact Computer Attribute Descriptor Package Reference Document, Champaign, Illinois. U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1985. National Register of Historic Places, Federal Register. Vol. 52. U.S. Federal Insurance Administration, 1980. FIRM: Flood Insurance Rate Map, Orange County. California (.Unincorporated Areas). Scale V=700% Community Panel Numbers 060222 0001 D,060222 0002, D060222 0003 D,060222 0004 D,060222 0005 D,060222 0006 D,060222 0007 D. U.S. Federal Insurance Administration, 1975. FLOODWAY; Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, Orange County, California Wnincor-porated Areas). Community Panel Numbers 060212 0009, 060212 0015, 060212 0022, 060212 0032, 060212 0041, 060212 0065, 060212 0070, 060212 0071. U.S. Forest Service, 1984. Trabuco District Fire Mosaic by Decades. Scale 1"=2 miles. U.S Forest Service, 1983. A Computer System for Testing Fire Management Prescriptions. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. U.S. Forest Service, 1984. Fire Behavior Prediction and Fuel Modeling System, Fuel Subs,, stem. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. U.S. Geological Survey, 1954. Geology of the Los Angeles Basin. Scale 1"=1 mile. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps. Scale 1:24,000. 11 References U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps. Scale 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. Maps. Scale 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps. Scale 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps. Scale 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey, No date. To Map Symbols. National Mapping Division. Arlington, Virgina. Page 29 U.S. Geological Survey, 1982. Index to Landsat Worldwide Reference Systems (WRS), Sheet 2. National Cartographic Information Center. Reston, Virgina. U.S. Geological Survey, 1984. USGS Digital Cartographic Data Standards, Overview and USGS Activities. Geological Survey Circular 895-A. . U.S. Geological Survey, 1985. Digital Elevation Models. Geological Survey Circular 895-B. U.S. Geological Survey, 1984. Digital Line Graphs from 1:24:000-Scale Maps. Geological Survey Circular 895-C. U.S'. Geological Survey, 1984. Digital Line Graphs from.1:2,000,000-Scale Maps. Geological Survey Circular 895-D. U.S. Geological Survey, 1984. Land Use and Land Cover Digital Data. Geological Survey Circular 895-E. U.S; Geological Survey, 1984. Geographic Names Information- System. Geological Survey Circular 895-F. U.S. Geological Survey, 1984. Digital Line Graph Attribute Coding Standards. Geological Survey Circular 895-G. Department of the Navy, 1976. Air Installation and Compatibility Use Zone Study for MCAS. El Toro and MCAS. Santa Ana. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1978. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office. Scale 1:24,000. VTN, Inc., 1969. Master Plan of Drainage for the Irvine Ranch - Valencia Area, Irvine, CA. VTN, Inc., 1971. Master Plan of Drainage for Unincorporated West Orange County Area, Irvine, CA. i 0 References Page 30 VTN, Inc., 1974. Dam Failure Inundation Report and Maps for Sand Canyon Reservoir, Irvine, CA. VTN, Inc., 1974. Dam Failure Inundation Report and Maps for Rattlesnake Reservoir, Irvine CA. VTN, Inc., 1974. Dam Failure Inundation Report and Maps for San Joaquin Reservoir, Irvine CA. VTN, Inc., 1973. Dam Failure Inundation Report and Maps for Santiago Reservoir, Irvine, CA. VTN, Inc., 1975. Dam Failure Inundation Report and Maps for Villa Park Reservoir, Irvine, CA. WESTEC Services, Inc., 1975. Test Trenching at San Joaquin Golf Course (site ORA- 111) Phase II., for The Irvine Company, Tustin CA. WESTEC Services; Inc., 1975 b. Test Excavations at San Joaquin Golf Course (site ORA 111.), for The Irvine Company, Tustin, CA. Williamson and Schmid, 1972. Master Plan of -Drainage for Irvine Industrial Area, Irvine, CA. Woodward -MacNeil and Associates, 1973. Seismic Safety+ Study for the City of Irvine, Orange, CA. Yerkes, R.F.; et.al., 1965. Geology of the Los Angeles Basin - An Introduction, U.S.G.S. Professional Paper, 420-A, 57p. 112584 li • APPENDIX A DATA AND► CONSTRAINTS MAPPING 0 DATA AND CONSTRAINTS MAPPING Overview This appendix documents the methodology used in preparing the data and constraint maps. The consultant team prepared a base map, eleven data maps, and thirteen constraint maps suitable for automation or for manual interpretation in the Irvine MEA. Aerial Information Systems (AIS) was responsible for the majority of this task, with assistance provided by Community Planning Services. General Mapping Procedure Each map was compiled in reference to the others, so that the data categories- show some degree of integration of polygon boundaries. The constraint maps were either prepared from -models derived from the data maps, or were compiled from existing published maps. The methodologies used to prepare the topographic base map, and the data and constraint maps are described below. The base map was prepared on a topographic base. It also included the City corporate limits; sphere of influence boundaries; I-5, I-405, and SR-133 Freeways; tic marks indicating the corners of each USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map; and reference marks used to align each map. Parts of the following six USGS quad sheets fall within the study area: Orange, Black Star Canyon, Tustin, El Toro, Laguna Beach, and _ San Juan Capistrano. Topographic reference for registering data consistently was provided by a mylar copy of a topographic map supplied by the Irvine Company. This mylar was placed underneath the Irvine MEA base map and registered using the .common registration marks. All data was plotted at a scale of 1:24,000 (1" = 2,000') on transparent mylar sheets. Each map was pin -registered to the base map to ensure proper alignment. Where data classification categories between the City of Irvine MEA and the Orange County MEA were identical, the polygon data within the sphere of influence were traced for use in the Irvine MEA. Delineations for data within the City boundaries, and where the data classification categories differed, were plotted from other sources. • A-1 Data and Constraints Mapping 0 Sources - All mans EDAW Inc. and ESRI for County of Orange. Master Environmental Assessment, Phase I: Constraints Mapping and Analysis. Vol. III: Technical Report. 1980. The Irvine Company. Topographic map. Scale 1:24,000. January 1982. U.S. Geological Survey. Black Star Canyon 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1967, Photorevised 1973. U.S. Geological Survey. El Toro 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1968. U.S. Geological Survey. Laguna Beach 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1965, Photorevised 1972. U.S. Geological Survey. Orange 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale -1:24,000..1964, Photorevised 1972. U.S. Geological Survey. San Juan Capistrano 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1968: U.S. Geological Survey. Tustin 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1965, Photorevised 1972. DATA MAPS Photo -interpretation played an important role in the data map preparation, particularly in regard to landform and vegetation. The imagery utilized included high -altitude color infrared photography (1:126,500 scale) and •low-level black -and -white photography (1:24,000 scale). Both sets of photography provided stereoscopic coverage of the study area. Additionally, a black -and -white mylar copy of a photomosaic of the area was available. The mosaic was placed underneath the topographic map, facilitating the transfer of data from stereoscopic interpretation to the data maps. The minimum mapping resolution was five acres. The actual procedures used for mapping each of the data items varied somewhat depending on the format of the source data utilized. These procedures are briefly summarized below. A-2 Data and Constraints Mapping 0 D-1 Landform This map was interpreted using topographic maps, the aerial black -and -white photos, and landslide collateral maps. Landslide boundaries were transferred visually from the source collateral to the preliminary landform overlay. Sources American Aerial Surveys, Inc. Photo set no. 80033. Flown 2/25/80 and 2/26/80. Black and white paper print. Scale 1:24,000 (approx.). Fife, Donald L. Geology of the South Half of the El Toro Quadrangle, Orange County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 110. Plate 1. Scale 1:12,000. 1974. The Irvine Company. Photomosaic. Scale 1:24,000. September 1982. Miller, Russell V., Ran, Siang S. Geology and engineering geologic aspects of the South Half Tustin Quadrangle, Orange County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology.. Special Report 126. Plate 1. - Scale 1:12,000. 1976. Morton, P.K., Edgington, W.L., Fife, D.L. Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the San Juan Capistrano Quadrangle, Orange County; California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report -112. Plate 1. Scale 1:12;000. 1974. NASA. Scene ID No. 5780025815165. Frame nos. 5167 and 5168. Flown 2/14/78. Color infrared paper prints. Scale 1:126,500. Tan, Siang S., Edgington, William J. Geology and engineering geologic aspects of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology. Special Report 127. Plate 1. Scale 1:12,000. D-2 Slope Zones This data map was interpreted from the USGS topographic maps by visual inspection of the contour line densities. A slope map was prepared by delineating units of five acres or larger where contour line densities fell within preset slope class limits. The percent slope class assigned to any unit represented the modal value for the unit. Local variations of less than five acres do occur within units. Where large areas have been regraded for development (most notably in the Turtle Rock area), a code of Urban Regraded was assigned. A-3 • Data and Constraints Mapping. Sources American Aerial Surveys, Inc. Photo set no. 80033. Flown 2/25/80 and 2/26/80. Black and white paper print. Scale 1:24,000 (approx.). The Irvine.Company. Photomosaic. Scale 1:24,000. September 1982. The Irvine Company. Topographic map.. Scale 1:24,000 January 1982. U.S. - Geological Survey. Black Star Canyon 7.5 minute, topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1967, Photorevised 1973. U.S. Geological Survey. El Toro 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1968. U.S. Geological Survey. Laguna Beach 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1965, Photorevised 1972. U.S. Geological Survey. Orange 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1965, Photorevised 1972. U.S. Geological Survey. San Juan Capistrano 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1968. U.S. Geological Survey. Tustin 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. 1965, Photorevised 1972. D-3 Soils This data was mapped using the Orange County Soil Survey which shows soil series and variant at a scale of 1:24,000. No reformatting was. necessary. Boundaries were adjusted to the topographic base map where necessary. Several inconsistencies were noted in the Soil Survey data. These were clarified through direct discussions with Soil Conservation Service personnel. Sources U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Scale 1:24,000. 1978. Y A-4 Data and Constraints Mapping D-4 Agricultural Preserves This map depicts the status of agricultural preserve contracts executed in accordance with the provisions of the Williamson Act. Agricultural preserve maps were provided by Mr. Gary Weber of The Irvine Company. Based upon these maps, areas under- contract were mapped according to the year of contract expiration. Some areas under contract within. the planning area extend beyond the study area and, therefore, these polygons do not always close at the study area boundary. The preserve boundaries were visually transferred from the maps supplied by the landowner. Sources Agricultural Preserve, The Irvine Company, Scale 1:24,000. Last updated September 1984. D-5 Vegetation This data 'map was photo -interpreted using the color. infrared and black -and -white photography. The phot.omosaic, being the most recent photo coverage available for this study, was used -to update areas mapped for the Orange County IVMA where development had clearly altered vegetation patterns. Windrows and the oak trees along Sand Canyon Avenue were added as linear features after all other vegetation data. had been mapped. They were delineated in a manner that did not create additional polygons. A field check - was conducted in August 1985 to confirm the status of the windrows shown on the aerial photographs. A comparison of this map with the vegetation map prepared for the 1971 Irvine General Plan, will show much smaller areas mapped as "woodland". This difference is primarily due to. the classifcation schemes used in preparing each map. The woodland classification used in the MEA is defined in the expanded code descriptions found in the Map Atlas. This definition requires a substantial percentage of trees for an area to qualify as woodland. While a definition of the classification scheme used for the 1973 map is not available, re-examination of the original map confirmed that areas with only a low number of trees were mapped as woodland Sources American Aerial Surveys, Inc. Photo set no. 80033. Flown 2/25/80 and 2/26/80. Black and white paper print. Scale 1:24,000 (approx.). The Irvine Company. Photomosaic. Scale 1:24,000. September 1982. A-5 Data and Constraints Mapping 6, NASA. Scene ID No. 5780025815165. Frame nos. 5167 and 5168. Flown 2/14/78. Color infrared paper prints. Scale 1:126,500. D-6 Environmental Documents Index This map depicts the areas which have been subject to detailed environmental review by the City of Irvine and other agencies. Project boundaries were taken from the project site maps included within each environmental document. In most cases these maps were prepared on a USGS topographic base map. This facilitated transfer of the, project boundary lines using visual methods. The following types of environmental documents were mapped: Initial Studies (CEQA) Environmental Impact Reports (CEQA) Environmental Assessments (NEPA) Environmental Impact Studies (NEPA) The map legend identifies the document type and project title. In all, over one hundred 41 documents were indexed. Iri many ' cases, several documents covered one geographic area. In these cases, the boundaries of each project were mapped separately. This approach results in multiple document listings within many of the polygons. In addition to the document types identified- above, three Master Environmental Assessments also cover all or substantial portions of the study area. These documents are noted on the map legend, but were not mapped. Sources The documents mapped are listed on the map legend, and have not been repeated here due to their number. Ms. Linda Rios, Environmental Services Division Mr. Mike Kellog, Irvine Ranch Water District Mr. Daniel L. Fricke, Planner, Orange County Environmental Management Agency D-7 Archaeological Documents Index This map geographically indexes all archaeological reports completed within the MEA • study area. As with the Environmental Documents Index map, the same area is A-6 Data and Constraints Mapping frequently addressed by more than one report. In these cases each report is listed.. The original reports were used as the source for mapping the areas covered. The boundary data was transferred visually. Sources: Ms. Linda Rios, Environmental Services Division Larry Seeman Associates, Archaeological Survey Report Notebooks, 1985. D-8 Statistical Areas and Residential Phasing Statistical areas are established by the City's General Plan Land Use Element. They represent residential villages, and other logical planning areas. In all 36 statistical areas were mapped for the N EA using visual methods from maps supplied by the City. Residential phasing areas are established by the General Plan to guide the timing of residential development within the planning area. Six phasing areas were mapped visually from those adopted by the City. . Sources 01 City of Irvine, General Plan Land Use Element Figure A-2, 1985 Scale 1:24,000 City of Irvine, General Plan Land Use Element,, Figure A-3, 1985 Scale 1:24,000 D-9 ITAP Zones ITAP is an acronym for the Irvine Traffic Analysis Program: This program has divided the planning area and surrounding areas into -the analysis zones shown on this map. While this phase of the MEA work effort only identified the ITAP zones, the City is considering expanding the scope of the system during future updates to integrate ITAP analysis into the automated system. Sources City of Irvine, Irvine Traffic Analysis Program Zone Map, 1985 Scale 1:24,000 • D-10 Census Areas Both Regional Statistical Areas (RSA), and Community Analysis Areas (CAA) were plotted on this map. These areas are established by the Federal Bureau of the Census in cooperation with state and local agencies. The boundaries of each area were rescaled A-7 Data and Constraints Mapping using manually techniques from maps supplied by the Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center. Community. Analysis Areas (CAA) were taken from "Community Analysis Areas" map (no date) published by the County of Orange, and were rescaled photographically. This map serves as an index to relate available census data to geographical areas within the study area. Future updates of the MEA may expand the system to include the actual demographic information as part of the automated system. Sources County of Orange, Regional Statistical Areas, 1984 Scale 1:12,000 County of Orange, Community Analysis Areas, 1984 Scale 1:12,000 D-11 IRWD Token Zones Token zones are areas representing local planning units used by the Irvine Ranch Water District for capital improvement programing. They are used in conjunction. with the District's land development, water use, and sewage flow computer program, and were 01 included in the MEA at the request of the Community Development Department, Advanced Planning Section to enhance the City's geographic base of administrative boundary information. The source map for these areas was . provided by Mr. Bob McGrew,, Senior Engineer with the Irvine Ranch Water'District. The boundaries of each area were rescaled from 1:48,000 to 1:24,000 using visual techniques. Source Irvine Ranch Water District, Token Map, Revised June 1983, Scale 1:48,000. Once the preliminary versions of each data map had been prepared, the final versions were drafted using a modified integration process. The purpose of integration is to reduce the time needed to digitize the maps during the subsequent automation process. Given that boundaries between many natural features are often coincident (i.e., changes in slope and soil often correspond with changes in landform), the integration process typically involve the delineation of a single line in place of three of four separate, but generally consistent lines which appear on each of the individual preliminary maps. - In the Orange County MEA, a high degree of integration was used to produce one Integrated Terrain Unit Map (ITUM) containing all the lines created by all the data categories. While an ITUM was not produced for the Irvine MEA, each final data map Was drafted in reference to the others, in order to standardize the delineation of essentially A-8 Data and Constraints Mapping coincident boundaries. The soils map was drafted first and modified the least, so that it closely resembles the published soil survey. Slope, vegetation, and landform were subsequently drafted in that order. The result is a reasonably good "fit" when the data maps are superimposed. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT MAPS Constraint maps. were derived from the data maps, or from various published maps. Baseline data were modeled to produce the Agricultural Capability, and' Fire Hazard Severity maps. Floodplain Boundaries, Dam Inundation Areas, Fire Frequency, Groundwater Recharge, and Drainage Area maps were drafted by reformatting existing maps. When necessary, data were rescaled to 1:24,000 by use of the optical pantograph; or by visually comparing the topographic base of the source map to the Irvine topographic map. The procedures used for each map are described further below. C-1 Geologic Hazards The geologic hazards map depicts various seismic response zones within the study area. These areas were originally established based upon a comprehensive technical _report completed by the geological engineering firm of Woodward McNeil Associates as part of the development program for the City's original General Plan completed in 1973. This map is currently included in the General Plan Seismic Element as Figure M-1.- The interpretation of each Seismic Response Area (SR.A) is found in the expanded code descriptions provided in the appendix to the MEA Map Atlas. The boundaries of each SRA were visually transferred to the MEA map. Sources City of Irvine, General Plan Seismic Element, Figure M 1, 1985. Scale 1:24,000 C-2 Flood/Dam Inundation Hazards The following two issues were drafted on one mylar overlay to facilitate evaluation of . overall Flood/Inundation Hazards. Floodplain Boundaries Floodplain boundaries were derived from United States Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) maps. Areas within city boundaries were mapped by tracing polygons from a map supplied by the City. Areas within the Sphere of Influence were mapped using Orange County MEA delineations, which in turn had been drafted from photographically rescaled A-9 i is Data and Constraints Mapping. (FIA) maps. It should be noted that there is an unresolved discrepancy in the floodplain boundaries between the FIA maps published for the City of Irvine, and those published for the County of Orange. These discrepancy occurs in the area of the Santa Ana Freeway and Jeffrey Road, and were plotted on the constraint map. Resolution of these differences will have to await publication of corrected Flood Insurance Rate Maps by FIA. A-10 Data and Constraints Mapping 0 Sources 1� City of Irvine. Map of 100 Year Floodplain. U.S. Federal Insurance Administration. Flood Insurance Rate - Map, Orange County, California (Unincorporated Areas). Scale 1" = 700'. 1979. Community Panel Number 060212, Map Number 0030, 0031, 0039, 0040,0049, 0050. Dam Inundation Areas This data item was derived .from several dam- inundation maps. These maps were provided. by Ms. Sharon Franks, Program Coordinator with the Orange County Emergency. Management Office. The maps were rescaled using the optical/manual method for reformatting data, and by visual transfer of data. Sources Boyle Engineering Corp. Inundation Map of Laguna Dam. Draft. Scale 1" = 1,000'. Boyle Engineering Corp. Inundation Map of Syphon Canyon Dam. Scale 1" = 1,000'. 1983. V.T.N. Consolidated Inc. Inundation Map for Rattlesnake Reservoir. Scale 1"=- 1,000'. 1973. V.T.N. Consolidated Inc. Inundation Map for Sand Canyon Reservoir. Scale 1" _ 1,000'. 1973. V.T.N. Consolidated Inc. Inundation Map for San Joaquin Reservoir. Scale 1" = 1,000'. 1973. - V.T.N. Consolidated Inc. Inundation Map for Santiago Reservoir. Scale 1:24,000. 1973. V.T.N. Consolidated Inc. Inundation Map for Villa Park Reservoir. Scale 1:24,600. 1975. C-3 Fire Hazards Fire Hazard Severity and Fire Frequency were drafted on one overlay. �I A-11 0 i • Fire Hazard Severity The fire severity model assigns a rating to an area based on the combination of several environmental factors which contribute to the risk associated with wildland fires. It is derived from a system - developed by the California Division of Forestry. Three environmental factors are considered as input in the fire hazard model: fuel loading, fire weather, and slope steepness. Fuel loading was derived from vegetation information as mapped for this study (see map D-5). Four fuel loading categories were assigned: a. - -None - Barren Areas, Water, Row Crops, Orchards, Plantations b. Light - Grassland, Marsh (Saltwater and Freshwater) c. Medium - Coastal Sage Scrub, Oak Savannah, Oak Woodland, Riparian Woodland, Coniferous Woodland d. Heavy - Chaparral, Oak Forest, Riparian Forest, Coniferous Forest Urban areas and fieldcrops were excluded from consideration in this evaluation. Fire weather was defined, using information from the State's Wildland Fire Danger Rating System, for each USGS quadrangle with wildland vegetation. Each quadrangle. is rated in one of the three categories of fire weather categories: a. Class I (Low) - Fire weather- either in the "extreme" or "high" range on the average of less. than one day per year (none in study area). b. Class II (High) _ Fire weather in either the "extreme" or "high" range on the average of one to 9.5 days per year (El Toro, Laguna Beach, Orange, San Juan Capistrano, Tustin). c. Class III (Extreme) - Fire weather in either the "extreme" or "high" range on the average of more than 9.5 days per year (Black Star Canyon). The slope categories utilized in this model were: < 45% 45 - 65% > 65% These slope categories were mapped as part of the Orange County MEA, but were not part of the Irvine MEA classification system. Thus, within the sphere of influence the A-12 Ll • Data and Constraints Mapping County MEA maps were used to delineate the appropriate slope categories,, while within the City, additional analysis of contour line density was completed to determine the location of these slope divisions. • To produce the fire hazard severity map, the vegetation and slope maps were superimposed and the resulting polygons formed wereevaluated according to the model shown below. Fire Weather Class II Fire Weather Class III Fuel % Slope % Slope Loading <45 45-65 >65 <45 45-65 >65 None 1, 1 1 1 1 1 Light 2- 2 2 2 2 3- Medium 3 3- 3 4 4 4 High 3 4 4 4 4 .4 Hazard Severity Index: 1= None/Low 2 = Moderate 3 = High 4 = Extreme This model expresses the overall fire hazard severity. It is an adaptation of the the model used by the.Division of Forestry, with minor changes made to account for input data in a slightly different form than that typically used by the Division. These adjustments did not materially affect the outcome of the modeling process. Sources California Division of Forestry. Fire Hazard Severity Classification System for California Wildlands. 1973. Mr. Hamilton Mills, California Department of Forestry. Riverside, CA. Fire Frequency This item was derived from maps showing the fire history of the area. The data was rescaled using the optical/manual method of reformatting data. Only the last three decades of fire were mapped for any one area. �I A-13 Data and Constraints Mapping 0 Sources Orange County Fire Dept. Fire History Map. Scale 1:66,000 (approx.). 1985. U.S. Forest Service. Trabuco District Fire Mosaic by decades. Scale 1" = 2 miles. Mr. Dave Hubert; Orange County Fire Department. Orange, CA C-4 Agricultural Capability This map describes the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops, according to the limitations imposed by those soils. The following codes corresponds to standard Soil Conservation Service designations: Class I - Soils have few limitations that restrict their use. Class II - Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices, or both. Class III - Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require special conservation practices, or both. Class IV - Soils have very severe .limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. Class V - Soils are not likely to erode but ' have other limitations, impractical to remove, that limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. (None in this survey area). Class VI - Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and that limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. Class VII - Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. Class VIII - Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial production of crops and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, or water supply, or to aesthetic purposes. In this study, soils in Classes III and IV were grouped together, as were those in Classes IS V through VIII. The Agricultural Capability map was produced by registering a sheet of A-14 Data and Constraints Mapping mylar to the final soils map and tracing only the boundaries that separated soils of different classes as modeled for this study. Additional soil management considerations are possible. These have been included as oart if the expanded code descriptions included in Appendix A of the the Map Atlas. Sources U.S. Soil Conservation, Service. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Scale 1:24,000..1978. C-5 Water Resources The following two issues were drafted on one map since they both deal with water resource information. Each variable was mapped from source maps more recent. than those used in the.Orange County NSA. Groundwater Recharge The groundwater basin, and areas of groundwater recharge were delineated using so collateral data and adjusted using the topographic map. Data were rescaled using the optical/manual method of reformatting, and by visual transfer. Where necessary, lines were adjusted to the base map. Sources Harvey O. Banks, Consulting Engineer Inc. High Ground Water Problem Areas in the Irvine Area. Plate 12. Orange County Water District Irvine Area Groundwater Management Study. Scale .1:48,275 (approximate). 1984. - Drainage Areas by Increment These areas were visually transferred from a map depicting the master plan of drainage boundaries for the Irvine study area. Codes are related to the drainage increment names. Sources City of Irvine. Areas for Joint Drainage Program Administration. Exhibit A to Agreement No. C689. Scale 1" = 4,000. 1972. Proposed Increments of a Master Plan of Drainage for the Unincorporated Areas of Orange County, California. Plate I. Dwg. No. Misc. - 106-41. Scale 1" = 2 miles. May 1968, revised May 1970. A-15 Data and Constraints Mapping 0 C-6 Biotic Resources Biotic resources were identified and mapped by Mr. Steve Nelson in conjunction with the development of the Biotic Resources Element (Technical Supplement 2). The original mapping was completed on USGS Quadrangle base maps. In all 35 areas with either moderate or high resource potential were identified. Each was .transferred visually to one map covering the entire study area. 'Please refer to Technical Supplement 2 for additional information regarding the designation of individual areas. Sources MEA Biotic Resource Element field maps (six quad sheets), November 1984. Scale 1:24;000. C-7 Sand and Gravel Resources Known and potential sand and gravel locations were plotted on this map. Geologic formations with the potential deposits were interpreted from geologic information based upon evaluation criteria.and ratings given in: Environmental Geology of Orange County, California, 1176. Only formations with a rating of "fair" or better were mapped. These included the Sequel member of the Puente formation, the Sespe and Vaqueros formations, and the undifferentiated members of the Sespe formation. Known resource areas were plotted from geologic maps recently published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. The Mines and Geology map was photographically rescaled, and the data plotted directly onto the MEA map sheet. Mr. Gary Weber of The Irvine Company was also consulted for additional information regarding any sand and gravel resources located on the Irvine Ranch. It is noteworthy that the areas identified as potential resource areas in the Irvine MEA do not coincide directly with those mapped as part of the County of Orange MEA program. This is because the County mapped geologic formations with ratings less than "fair", and in part due to the "integration" process which adjusted the polygon boundaries. Sources Division of Mines and Geology, Map of Orange County Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits, 1981, Scale 1:48,000. Division of Mines and Geology, and County of Orange, Environmental Geology of Orange County. California, 1976, Scale 1:24,000. 0 A-16 Data and Constraints Mapping Division of Mines and Geology, 1981. Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area, Part III. Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Orange County-Tesmescal Valley Production -Consumption Region. Scale of origins 1:24,000. C-8 Historical Resources As .part of the MEA, a records check was completed to locate known'historical resources within the planning area. The following institutions were consulted during, the records check: California Historic Preservation Office Orange County Historical Commission Irvine Historical Society City of Irvine Historical, Archaeological and Paleontological Committee The following publications were also reviewed for historical resource information: California History. Plan California Inventory of Historical Resources National Register of Historic Places California Historical Landmark Register California Points of Historical Interest Register �1 Historical Landmarks of Orange County Irvine General Plan, Cultural Resources Element East Irvine Historical Area, by the Irvine Blue Ribbon Committee Historical resources officially recognized by federal, state, or local agencies were mapped. - While additional, potentially significant, historic resources exist within the study area, no comprehensive study has been undertaken to identified or evaluated their significance, thus they have not been mapped. Tenant farm homes fall within this category. Since the City's Cultural Resources Element identifies all officially recognized - sites, it was used to plot the site locations by visually transposition. The approximate location of each resource is denoted by a circular polygon. A-17 Data and Constraints Mapping 0 Sources City of Irvine, General Plan Cultural Resources Element Figure N-1, 1985, Scale of original 1:24,000. C-9 Archaeological Resources Archaeological resources were mapped by the firm of Larry Seeman Associates during preparation of the Archaeological Resources Element. * This Element is included as Technical Supplement 3. -It provides a further discussion of the methodology used in preparing -this map. Because of the sensitivity -of. site location information of archaeological sites, this map is considered confidential, and has not been published as part of the Map Atlas. Sources Refer to Technical Supplement 3. C-10 Paleontological Resources This map depicts the paleontological sensitivity of the planning area's rock units. It also identifies the location of all recorded paleontological sites. The final MEA map was compiled from . draft maps prepared on USGS Quad sheets by the firm of RMW Associates. The criteria used to map -the sensitive zones, and adescription of the recorded sites is presented in the Paleontological Element, Technical Supplement 4. Sources Refer to Technical Supplement 4. C-11 Aircraft Noise and Crash Hazards As the title indicates, this map is a composite depicting both aircraft noise and crash hazard information. Of all three aviation facilities within or surrounding the planning area, crash hazard zones have only been established at one: Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro. At this installation, accident potential zones (APZ) include Clear Zones, APZ 1, and APZ 2. While not strictly an accident potential zone, local pattern aircraft corridors are also established. The definition of these zones is found in the expansion code descriptions included with the Map Atlas. With the exception of the local pattern aircraft corridors, these areas were • transposed from maps provided by the City of Irvine. The local pattern aircraft corridor boundaries were rescaled from Exhibit V-10 of the AICUZ Study for El Toro. A--18 Data and Constraints Mapping Noise Noise contours were mapped -in increments of five using Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL), the standard used by the City of Irvine. The contours for El Toro were transposed directly from General Plan Noise Element Figure F-2. Noise contours for John Wayne Airport were derived from 1984 Noise Contour maps provided by the airport manager's office. The noise contours for MCAS', Tustin Helicopter Facility were rescaled from the 1976 AICUZ for that facility. Because all noise contour locations are heavily influenced by such factors as the level of • aircraft operations and mix of aircraft types, the contour locations are subject to change, and will require updating as circumstances change. Sources City of Irvine, Map of El Toro Crash Hazard Zones, 1985, Scale 1:24,000. U.S Department of the Navy, Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study, MCAS El Toro, Exhibit V-10, 1981. Scale 1"=4500' (approximate) U.S Department of the Navy, Air Installations Compatible Use Zones ' Study, MCAS, Santa Ana, 1976. Scale 1"=4500' (approximate) County of Orange, John Wayne Airport Noise Contours for 1984. Scale approximately 1:48,000. C-12 Roadway and Railroad Noise The 65 CNEL noise contour for combined future noise levels resulting from roadway and railroad noise sources was mapped based upon maps provided by the City. The noise contour was visually transposed from a current 1:24,000 map to the MEA map sheet. Sources City of Irvine, General Plan Noise Element, Figure F-3: Future Highway/Railroad Noise, 1985. Scale 1:24,000. C-13 Special Districts This map is a composite of three special district designations: Hillside District, Coastal Zone, and Air Quality Source/Receptor Areas. The Hillside District depicts an overlay district established by the City's Zoning Ordinance. This area was visually te-scaled from maps district boundary maps included in the Zoning Ordinance. The Coastal Zone designation denotes the area subject to special land use regulations associated with the A-19 • Data and Constraints Mapping California Coastal Conservation Act. This area also was -re-scaled visually from a map provided by the City. Air Quality Source/Receptor areas are -boundaries established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for air quality data collection and trend analysis. Two such areas span the study area. The boundaries of these areas were plotted by visual transposition of the boundaries from maps .supplied by the AQMD. Sources City of Irvine, 1984. Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Overlay District, V.E. 502, Figure 500- City of Irvine, 1984. Zoning Ordinance, "Special Regulations for Development in the Coastal Zone, Figure 814-1. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1983. Air Quality Handbook, Figure 4 - Source/Receptor Areas. A-20 APPENDIX B MITIGATION MEASURE SOURCES. 6 • • APPENDIX B MITIGATION POLICY INVENTORY The following inventory was prepared in support of the Irvine MEA. It is current as of July 1985. In addition to the documents listed below, the Urban Design Implementation Plan was reviewed. This document has not been listed separately, however, ' since the environmental policies contained in the UDIP are also found within the documents. Map TitlelReference Document Applicable Policies C-1 Geologic Hazards General Plan Policies: J=1b; M-la; M-2a,d,f,g; Zoning Ordinance: Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: C-2 Flood/Dam Inundation Hazards General Plan Policies:. Zoning Ordinance: Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Seismic Element Standards V.E. 733.5 (4) Earth Resources (page 4) and Appendix A Section 4.4 a Conditions 2.2; 2.7; 3.2 Guideline IF Mitigation measures page 157 B-2g; L-3f, L-4b,g,h,i,n,o, q,tu V.E. 503; 700.2 (6); 713.4 (4), (6),(7),(9); 733.5 (7),(11). Water Resources (page 6) Section 4.3 a (36) and (37) Conditions 1.1 b; 1.3; 2.5 �1 B-1 J Mitigation Sources Map TitlelReference Document Applicable Policies a • Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment #-4 EIR: C-3 Fire Hazards General Plan Policies: Zoning Ordinance: Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: C-4 Agricultural Capibility .General Plan Policies: Zoning Ordinance: Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: Guidelines 4 A - H Mitigation measures pages 158, 159 J-lc; J-2a-b,d Conditions 2.1; 3.3 Guidelines 7 A; 8 C Mitigation measures pages 159 L-3a-g,i-o V.E. 201; 733.5 (3) Mitigation measures pages 167-169 B-2 Mitigation Sources Map Title/Reference Document Applicable Policies C-5 Water Resources General Plan Policies: Zoning Ordinance: EnvironmentarReview Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Condition: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: C-6 Biotic Resources General Plan Policies: Zoning Ordinance: Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: Eculyptus Windrow Policy (Reso 1036): • A-2p; L-ld,f.--m,o; L-4c,p V.E. 700.2 (6);736.4 (15), (16), (17). Water Resources (page 6) Section 1.3 Conditions 1.2;1.3; 2.3 Page 43 (#6); Page 39 (#5) Guidelines 2 C,I; 3 D Mitigation measures pages 145, 148 A-2p; L-la-g, r; L-2a-h V.E. 708.4 (7); 713.2 (5); 713.4 (8),(1.6). Biotic Resources (page 7) Section 3.6-c (5); 4.3 a (40), (41); 4.3 a (42);4.6 (23) Conditions 2.4 Section I. 1. Guidelines 1 C, E, E; 3 A-B, E;4A;8A,B Mitigation measures pages 153-155 Entire document e B-3 Mitigation Sources Map TitlelReferencebocument Applicable Policies C-7 Sand and Gravel Resources General Plan Policies: A-ld Zoning Ordinance: -- Environmental Review Matrix: -- Subdivision Manual: -- Standard Subdivision Conditions: -- -Landscape Manual: -- Hillside Development Manual: Guideline 2 G General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: -- C-8 Historical Resources General Plan, Policies: N-1,a d, N-2,a-c,f-h; Cultural Resources Element Standards Zoning Ordinance: V.E. 713.4 (20); 719.4 (2) Environmental Review Matrix: Cultural and Scientific Resources (page 9) and Appendix D Subdivision Manual: -- Standard Subdivision Conditions: -- Landscape Manual: -- Hillside Development Manual: Guidelines 1 G;8 B General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: Mitigation measures pages 161 • C-9 Archaeological Resources . General Plan Policies: N-la-d; N-2a-c,f-h; Cultural Resources Element Standards 10 B-4 Mitigation Sources 0 Map Title/Reference Document Applicable Policies Zoning Ordinance: V.E. 5002.3 (c); 700.2 (14);. 708.4 (10); 710.4 (5); 714.3 (17); 724.5 (13); 733.5 (10); 736.4(3) Environmental Review Matrix: Cultural and Scientific Resources (page 9) and Appendix D Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Conditions 2.6 Landscape Manual: -- Hillside Development Manual: Guidelines 1 G;8 B General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: Mitigation measures pages 162 C-10 Paleontological Resources General Plan Policies: N-la-d; N-2a-c,f-h; Cultural Resources Element Standards Zoning Ordinance: V.E. 708.4 (10) Environmental Review Matrix: Cultural and Scientific Resources (page 9) and Appendix D -Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Condition 2.6 Landscape Manual: -- Hillside Development Manual: Guidelines 1 G;8 B General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: Mitigation measures pages 163 C-11 Aircraft Noise and Crash . General Plan Policies: A-if--hj; B-2m,; F-la-d,f- k,m-o; F-2a; Noise Element Standards B-5 Mitigation Sources Map Title/Reference Document Applicable Policies Zoning Ordinance: Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: Noise Ordinance: C-12 Roadway and Railroad Noise General Plan Policies: Zoning Ordinance: Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: Noise Ordinance: Stationary Sources: • General Plan Policies: V.E. 301.4; 301.7; 700.2 (2); 708.4 (6); 709.3; 713.3; 713.4 (2), (21); 733.3 (a4, b4,c5,e); 733.5 (5),(13); (14),(15),(16); 735.3; 736.3; 801.2 Al Noise (page 12) and Appendix E Conditions 3.4; 3.5 (proposed) Mitigation measures pages 209, 210, 213 Entire document A-lf.hj; B-2m; F-la-c,e- k,p,r,t; Noise Element Standards V.E. 700.2 (8); 713.4 (18), (19); 733.5 (14),(15),(16); 801.2 Al Noise (page 12) and Appendix E Conditions 3.4; 3.5 Mitigation measures pages 209,210, 213 Entire document F-2a-c B-6 Mitigation Sources Map TitlelReferenceDocument Applicable Policies Noise Ordinance: C-13 Special Districts Hillside District General Plan Policies: Zoning Ordinance: Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: Coastal Zone General Plan Policies: Zoning Ordinance: Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: Entire document A-2k; Land Use Element Standards for rural residential; B-2g; B-4 a-c; L-1n,p-u; L-3e V.E. 502; 721.4 (2). Project Description (page 1), Earth Resources (page 4), Water Resources (page 6), Biotic Resources (page 7), Cultural and Scientific Resources (page 9) Section 4.4 g Conditions 3.7 Entire Manual Mitigation measures pages 135-137 V.E. 814 0 B-7 Mitigation Sources Map TitlelReference Document Applicable Policies AQMD General Plan Policies: Zoning Ordinance: - Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: Other Phasing General Plan Policies: Zoning Ordinance: Environmental Review Matrix: Subdivision Manual: Standard Subdivision Conditions: Landscape Manual: Hillside Development Manual: General Plan Amendment # 4 EIR: • B-8 A-le,g,hj; A-2b, A-5g; B-3c; C-3e; D; D-1 all; I-1 all; L- 4 a-m,n-v V.E. 700.2(7),(11),(13),(15); 735.3 (2); 736.4 (2), (5). Air Resources (page 8) Section 4.4 d Mitigation measures pages 143, 144, 223 A-2c; A-3 all(14); A-4 all (IBC); J-2d; L-3a; L-3o V.E. 700.2 (4),(5). 0 11 is Mitigation Sources This -section 'lists inventory which The source of a ADDITIONAL MITIGATION SOURCES the sources in addition to those identified in the preceding policy vere consulted during preparation of the MEA mitigation measures. speck measure can be found in the User's. Guide in parenthesis following each measure. C1 Geologic Hazards Chapter 70, Uniform Building Code California Subdivision Map Act Mr. Tony Slunka, Irvine City Engineer Mr. Loran Anderson, Principal Engineer C-2 Flood/Dam Inundation Hazards Dam Inundation California Government Code 8589.5 Mr. Keith Harrison, California Office of Emergency Services Sylvan Hersh, PhD., Emergency Services Coordinator, City of Irvine F1'oodina Mr. Ed Moore, Principal Planner Mr. Dain Styles, The Irvine Company Mr. Mark Wildermouth, Camp Dresser and McKee Ms. Diane Dzerske, The Irvine Company C-3 Fire Hazards Mr. Tony Slunka, Irvine City Engineer Mr. Gene Hutain, Fire Protection Analyst Orange County Fire Department Mr. Daniel Fricke, Orange County MEA Fire Safety Considerations for Development in Hillside Areas = A Guide for Planners and Developers C4 Agricultural Capability Ed Moore, Community Development Department . Dain Anderson, Community Development Department B-9 0 Mitigation Sources Steve Haubert, Community Development Department C-5 Water Resources Groundwater Mr. Bob Storhheim, Manager Inspection Services Mr. Nereus L. Richardson, Assistant Manager and District Engineer, Orange County Water District Harvey O. Banks, 1984. Ground Water Management Irvine Area Orange County, CA. Prepared for the Orange County Water District Master Plan Areas Mr. Tony Slunka, City Engineer Mr. Loran Anderson, Principal Engineer C-6 Biotic Resources Refer to the Biotic Resources Element, MEA Technical Supplement 2 C-7 Sand and Gravel Resources Environmental Geology of Orange County, California,1976. Air. Daniel Fricke, Orange County EMA Mr. Gary Weber, The Irvine Company C-8 Historical Resources Ms. Judy Liebeck, past president of the Irvine Historical Society Ms. Ann Johnson, member of the Irvine Historical Society Mr. Cliff Boderman, Curator of the Irvine Historical Museum Irvine Historical, Archaeological and Paleontological Committee, meeting of December 12,1985 C-9 Archaeological Resources Mr. Ed Moore Irvine Historical, Archaeological and Paleontological Committee, meeting of December 12, 1985 Beth Padon, Larry Seeman Associates, County Certified Archaeologist C-10 Paleontologicaf Resources isMr. Rod Raschke, RMW Associates, County Certified Paleontologist B-10 1 0 • Mitigation Sources Irvine Historical, Archaeological and Paleontological Committee, meeting of December 12,1985 C-il Aircraft Noise and Crash Hazards Eve Frost, General Plans Section Ed Moore, Environmental Services Section Mike Thiele, General Plans Section Irvine, City Council Resolution - 1090 Irvine Noise Ordinance C-12 Roadway and Railroad Noise Mr. Mike Thiele, General Plans Section Mr. Ed Moore, Environmental Services Section Mr. Dain Anderson, Environmental Services Section C-13 Special Districts Hillside District Mr. Mike Thiele, General Plans Section Mr. Ed Moore, Environmental Services Section Mr. Dain Anderson, Environmental Services Section Coastal Zone Mr. Mike Thiele, General Plans Section Mr. Ed Moore, Environmental Services Section Mr. Dain Anderson, Environmental Services Section Air Quality Management Districts City Council Resolution 1171 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Handbook Mr. Brian Farris, South Coast Air Quality Management District Mr. Mike Thiele, General Plans Section Mr. Ed Moore, Environmental Services Section Mr. Dain Anderson, Environmental Services Section B-11 0 APPENDIX C DATA CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM i • • APPENDIX C DATA CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Introduction The MEA data classification system serves several important functions. First, it divides a resource with a continuous spectrum of values or interpretations into separate categories. For example, slope is divided into specific increments such -as 5, 10, or 20 percent so that these areas may be mapped in a polygon format. Second, the classification system describes already mapped, readily distinguishable units such as geologic formation or soil types. These units are typically mapped by name or number with the classification system serving as an enumeration of these previously defined units. Finally, the classification system delineates natural, cultural, 'and administrative boundaries, such as those associated with census or planning areas. The delineations of these areas serves as an index for examination of related information or environmental issues. Definition of the classification system was guided by considerations similar to those employed in the selection of the environmental topics themselves. Namely, the data category had to be broad enough to produce legible maps with sufficient detail to. be useful, it had to be available throughout the study area in published form or be capable of being interpreted from aerial photography, and it had to respond to environmental issues considered important to the City. Many of the data categories are self explanatory, while others tend to be somewhat cryptic. For example, "mixed chaparral' does not immediately suggest the individual plant species which comprise this biotic community. In these instances, an expanded code description has been prepared. These expanded descriptions are found as an appendix to the Map Atlas. C-1 0 • CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The following presents the data classification system used for the Irvine MEA. Data Maps Mau Title Data Categories 1. Landform Lake Reservoir Coastal Lagoon/Estuary Depression Delta Beach Dune Cliffs Gully Floodplain Upland Valley Marine Terrace Bench Marine Terrace Sideslope Alluvial Fan Alluvial Terrace Bench Alluvial Terrace Sideslope Alluvial Plain Landslide Rock outcrop Mountain Ridge Top Mountain Sideslope Hilltop Hill/sideslope Man-made/altered C-2 Data Classification 0 Ma Title Data Categories 2. Slope Zones 3. Soils 4. Agricultural Preserves 5. Vegetation a, - 0-5% 5 -10% 10 - 15% 15-20% 20 - 25% 25 - 30% >30% Mapped by U.S. Soil Conservation Service Soil series Areas under contract by year of expiration Grassland Coastal Sage Scrub -Coastal Sage Scrub -Sage Coastal Sage Scrub -mixed Chaparral Chamise Chaparral Mixed Chaparral Oak Savannah Oak Woodland/Forest Oak Woodland Oak Forest Riparian Woodland/Forest Riparian Woodland Riparian Forest Windrow Sand Canyon Oaks Marsh Saltwater Marsh Freshwater Marsh Barren Agriculture Orchard (type) Fieldcrop Urban/Cultural-Altered ft C-3 0 Data Classification Map Title Data Categories 6. Environmental Documents Index 7. Archaeology Documents Index S. Statistical Areas and Residential Phasing 9. Irvine Transportation Analysis Program 10. Census Areas Major environmental documents indexed by geographic coverage. Reports indexed by geographic coverage. Statistical areas and phasing mapped according to established general plan categories. Analysis zones mapped according ITAP By Regional Statistical Areas and Community Analysis Areas 11. Irvine Ranch Water District Token Areas By established IRWD. zones Environmental Constraint Maps 1. Geologic Hazards 2. Flood/Dam Inundation Hazards Seismic Response Area 1 Seismic Response Area 2 Seismic Response Area 3 Seismic Response Area 4 Seismic Response Area 5 100 Year Floodplain Floodway Floodway Fringe Dam inundation areas by reservoir C-4 Data Classification 16 Map Title Data Categories 3. Fire Hazards 4. Agricultural Capability i 5. Water Resources • Fire Hazard Severity None Low Moderate High Extreme Not Rated Fire Frequency No Known Fires One Fire Two Fires Three Fires Agricultural Capability Not agricultural Soils Class III & IV Soils Class II Soils Class I Soils Groundwater Recharge Not in basin Restricted recharge Partially restricted recharge Unrestricted recharge Drainage Areas by increment vp C-5 Data Classification Mau Title Data Categories 6. Biotic Resources No Significance: No resources Moderate Significance: Buffer area Link between habitat areas of high significance and locally significant habitats Locally significant riparian habitats Locally significant freshwater marsh habitats Locally significant stands of native vegetation Open water/shoreline with local value as waterfowl habitat High Significance: Rare/endangered/unique species Regionally -significance riparian habitat Open water/shoreline with regional significance as waterfowl habitat Prime bird of prey nesting/roosting area Prime bird of prey foraging/wintering area Prime bird of prey nesting/roosting area Major wildlife movement corridor Regionally significant freshwater.marsh Regionally significant oak woodland Woodland/brushland/grassland ecotone C-6 11 r-7 Data Classification .Man Title Data Categories 7. Sand and Gravel Resources 8. Historical Resources 9. Archaeological Resources (Confidential Map) 10. Paleontological Resources 11. Aircraft Noise and Crash Hazards 12. Roadway and Railroad Noisr, 13. Special Planning Areas Not resource area Potential resources Known resources Recognized sites plotted Recorded site locations and status plotted Mapped by Sensitivity Zone: None Low sensitivity Moderate sensitivity High sensitivity Recorded sites Airport Noise Contours (CNEL) <60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 >80 Airport Crash Hazards Not in a crash hazard Local aircraft traffic zone Accident Potential Zone 1 Accident Potential Zone 2 Airport clear zone 65 CNEL Railroad and roadway noise contour plotted The following area boundaries plotted: Hillside Overlay District Coastal Zone Air Quality Management District Subbasins C-7 i • BIOTIC RESOURCES ELEMENT Technical Supplement 2 • BIOTIC RESOURCES ELEMENT Prepared For COMMUNITY PLANNING SERVICES EL TORO, CALIFORNIA Prepared By STEVEN G. NELSON CONSULTING BIOLOGIST August 1985 Revised January 1986 • 0 CONTENTS , I. INTRODUCTION A. Overview of Biotic Resources .. . ... .. .... ......... 1 B. Purpose, Scope and Objectives ......... , ............... 1 II. APPROACH A. Current Practices and Problems ............. .......... 4 B. The Application of Commonly Accepted Criteria - A Uniform Procedure for Resource Assessment :................. 4 III-. FINDINGS A. Biotic Communities ......... .......... .......... 9 B. High Interest Species ................................. 9 C. Areas of High Significance ......... ..................... 11 D. Areas of Moderate Significance ....... ...:........a... 20 E. Areas of Low Significance ............................. 20 IV. WHY PRESERVE BIOTIC DIVERSITY? .......... I. .... `....... 21 V. REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ................... 25 APPENDICES A. Applicable Laws and Planning Policies B. Sources Reviewed for Assessment Criteria C. Individuals or Groups Consulted in the Development of Assessment Criteria D. Evaluation Criteria E. Descriptions of Biotic Communities F. Areas of High and Moderate Significance G. Mitigation Program H. Glossary i r L--j TABLES A Total County Coverage and Percent of County Total for Major Community Types within the Study- Area. ................... ' 10 B Species of Special Status and/or Concern and Representative Examples of Their Occurrence within the Study Area .. .... ........... 12 FIGURES 1 Study Area ....... . ................ .............. 2 2 Biotic Resources Map ............. ........................ 18 ii L INTRODUCTION A. Overview of Biotic Resources within the Study Area The study area, including -the City of Irvine and its sphere of influence lies within the - coastal and foothill region of central Orange County: Ecologically, the area encompasses a wide range of physical habitats including flatlands, hills and mountains. These habitats support a diverse collection of grassland, brushland and woodland vegetation types which, in turn, support a wide variety of wildlife. As is typical of most of the Southern California coastal region, past agricultural activities and more intense urban development have taken place over most of the study area and have resulted in the removal of natural habitats from the landscape.. As a consequence, large areas 'of native vegetation and wildlife habitats have also been lost and, today, remain relatively undisturbed only .in the steeper hills and mountains. - Man's impact on the landscape and biotic resources within the _study area has not been limited to habitat loss. Man has also made a contribution to the landscape in the form of reforestation and the creation of lakes, ponds and reservoirs in an otherwise semi -arid landscape. Right or wrong, these contributions are a part of the ecological "fabric" which covers the study area today. This ecological fabric contains eight major vegetation types, six of which are native or naturalized and two of which are man -created. Associated with -these are hundreds of plant and wildlife species,' many of which have become very. restricted in their distribution. Along with their inherent natural resource value, some of these resources possess cultural value, being representative of the area's agrarian history and heritage. Almost certainly, the need to actively plan and manage this biotic resource base will increase as the City of Irvine annexes additional land and continues to grow and expand. B. Purpose. Scope and Objectives of the Study The purpose of this study is to lay the groundwork and provide a working tool for the planning and management of the City's biotic resources. The scope of this, study includes. the entire existing resource base encompassed by the City limits and the City's sphere of influence which may eventually be .annexed to the City (Figure 1). Recognizing, however, the fact that biotic resources within a single jurisdiction cannot always be managed in a "vacuum" due to their being part of larger, regional ecological systems, this study is designed to interface and work with the County of Orange Master Environmental 1 • 11 • • Assessment. Phase I of the county study, completed in 1981, covered the unincorporated lands surrounding the City and overlaps this study within the City's sphere of influence (1). In accordance with its purpose -and scope, this study has the -following objectives. o To document the existing- biological resource base within the study area at a scale appropriate for general planning purposes. o To define and delineate areas of high, moderate and low biological significance, as an "overlay" to the existing resource base; whereby ongoing resource planning review and management activities can be focused. o To outline and discuss management considerations -for the various areas of significance identified, whereby City planners will have, in hand, guidelines to direct their planning -and management activities. Through the accomplishment of these objectives, this=study- is intended to have utility to planners and decision makers, as well as to landowners, developers and the general public. If consistently applied, it will serve as a basis for the common understanding of land use capabilities and suitabilities for future growth within the city.- A cautionary note should be made concerning the types of uses to which this analysis can be put. This study represents a first level constraints analysis. It may be used to identify key biological constraints and general management guidelines for further detailed study as part of the planning and environmental review processes. Furthermore, this analysis is not static. As additional information is generated through subsequent- more detailed 'on the ground investigations, the findings of- this study should be refined and updated. It is not anticipated, however, that this process will result in changes in sensitivity levels. Rather, it is expected to provide detailed information on the distribution and interrelationships of key resources within the designated management units so that they may be properly managed at the appropriate level of detail. 3 • H. APPROACH A. Current Practices and Problems A recurring question which arises in land- use planning, resource management and environmental review is what constitutes a significant biological resource? Surprisingly even more than a decade after the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) was enacted, .there is no universally accepted answer. CEQA- established a procedural structure for environmental review to ensure that. the long-term protection -of the environment is a guiding criterion in public decisions. However, consistently within this structure there is, the need to determine whether or not a resource is significant. For many of the factors customarily considered in land use planning and management the intent of the term "significant" is readily discernible as the result of laws, codes-. and ordinances written specifically to address public health, and safety: For these factors, including for example, geotechnical hazards, flood hazards and .ambient noise levels, the determination of significance is fairly clear and basic. This is not, however, the case with biological resources. Rather than being a -basic determination founded on legal requirements, the assessment of biological resource significance has largely been- -a subjective determination based on individual -interpretation. Although some selected biological resources are addressed by laws, codes and policies, they are limited to legally protected rare and endangered species, . riparian 'habitats and wetlands. Appendix A provides an annotated listing of applicable laws and policies. These address only a fraction of the biological resources which exist in our environment and in. no way represent the only significant resources given any reasonable interpretation. The. lack of broader criteria with which to determine significance has been a fundamental problem in managing biological resources. Principally, this problem has manifested itself in several ways, including unpredictable findings and conclusions; widespread disagreement on resource values; and, an inconsistent planning perspective within which sound goals and planning decisions have been difficult to make. B. The Application of Commonly Accepted Criteria - A Uniform Procedure for Resource Assessment As mentioned above, current practices of biological resource assessment have resulted in an undisciplined, vaguely defined activity which often results. in unworkable concepts for regionwide resource planning and management. What is needed, is a set of evaluation criteria for defining biological significance which are commonly accepted within the 4 scientific, governmental and private communities. The central element and strength of such criteria should be that they are well enough defined to allow their. application to specific resource types, yet are broad enough to encompass all resource types. In addition, these criteria should remain fixed to ensure consistency and objectivity. Following is a description of how this concept was applied --to the City of Irvine Master Environmental Assessment. There were four basic phases involved: 1) the research phase, where the evaluation criteria were developed; 2). the -inventory phase, where the resource base was defined; 3) the interpretive phase, where the evaluation criteria were applied to the resource base; and 4) the analysis -phase, wherelogical management units were delineated in a manner which best allows for the planning and management -of resources according to their degree of significance. . 1. The Research Phase As the logical first step of any study like this one, the research ' phase consisted of reviewing relevant literature and canvassing a body of biologists involved in planning and resource management activities. For the most part, this particular task was accomplished by the author during co -preparation - of' the 1976 Los ,Angeles- County Significant Ecological -Area Study for the Los.Angeles County Department of Regional Planning as part of their general plan update program (2). During the Los Angeles County Study some.40 to 50 resource management and planning documents and reports were reviewed to understand how significance had previously been defined. In addition, over 150 individual biologists representing some 62 governmental agencies, private conservation groups and academic institutions responded to a request for -their input. Appendices B and C provide lists of sources reviewed and persons contacted, respectively, for the Los Angeles County Study. - Interestingly enough, a more recent review of literature discovered a similar, totally independent approach developed for environmentally sensitive area planning in Ontario, Canada, for use by municipalities across that province (3). Many of the specific criteria promoted by the Ontario. study were nearly identical to those used. for the Los Angeles County study. The intent of the Los Angeles County study (and the Ontario approach) was to identify significant ecological areas for a comprehensive planning program, and the input received was translated into only the highest level of concern. However, since resource significance is seldom a "black and white" issue it was later recognized that a more useful set of criteria would be one which would assess resources according to either high, moderate or low significance. Further, it was recognized that these rankings should reflect and dictate the level of concern and attention resources should receive in the land use planning and management process. 5 • The use -of criteria defining high, moderate and low.. levels of significance was precisely the approach taken in the biological assessment for the 1981 County of Orange Master Environmental Assessment, also prepared by the author (1). In this regard, the approach used for the County study was viewed as superior to its Los Angeles 'County and .Ontario predecessors and was the model for the approach used for the preparation of .this report. Thus, the research phase was largely completed and'is well -documented in the previously cited studies with only an update of the literature review and canvassing efforts required. The reader should note that this study refines the previous approaches, particularly the County of Orange MEA. This is reflected in- the categorization of resources. Whereas, the classification scheme includes the same types, of resources as those identified in the County report, their definition is more specific. That is, this study generally "split" or expands upon resources, which were "lumped" in the County report. For example-, the County, report -included a classification of "ecotone of oak/riparian woodlands, brushland and grassland habitat". This report is, more specific in its classification delineating this same resource type a& "regionally significant oak woodland", "regionally significant riparian habitat" and "woodland/brushland/grassland ecotone." In addition, the significance of the Bommer Canyon management area, of which only a small portion was evaluated in the County study, was upgraded from moderate to high. A detailed description of each of the evaluation" criterion is .provided in Appendix. D. Briefly, however, the criteria andrationale defining "high significance" relate to resources that are generally limited in distribution -and whose contribution to biological diversity and/or productivity is critical within their regional context. In most cases, the term "regional" refers 'to Southern California. For purposes of the Irvine Master Environmental Assessment, these resources include: o The habitat of state and federally sanctioned rare, endangered and -threatened plant and animal species. o Biotic communities, vegetative associations and habitats of plant and animal species that are highly restricted in distribution on a regional basis. o Habitat, that at some point in the life cycle of a species or group of species, serves as a concentrated breeding, feeding, resting or migrating grounds, and -is limited in availability. o Biotic resources that are of scientific interest because they are either an extreme in physical/geographical limitations, or they represent an unusual variation in a population -or community. R, o Areas that serve as "core" habitats, to regional plant, wildlife, and game. populations and fisheries. The criteria for defining "moderate significance" relate to 'resources whose contribution to native biological diversity and productivity is limited to their local context and/or which support the - functioning and integrity of adjacent areas of high significance. Such resources are: o Habitats that are key to the maintenance of localized plant and animal populations but are not significant on a regional basis. o Areas which act to buffer and protect resources of high significance. o Corridors and zones which serve to link areas of high significance and facilitate their ecological -interaction. o Biological resources which are noteworthy for their educational and/or, horticultural value. Remaining. biological resources fall within areas of "low significance". The single criterion for determining these resources is: o Areas where biological resources have been removed or significantly altered and/or none of the above criteria apply. 2. The Inventory Phase This phase' consisted of reviewing all available information .on existing resources, supplementing these with additional field investigations, and compiling this information into a. preliminary data base. The compilation of existing information was as complete as available information permitted, including previous planning and environmental studies in and around the study area, literature in scientific journals, natural resource surveys published by local environmental management agencies, publications, on, rare and endangered species and areas of special biological significance by State and Federal wildlife agencies and private conservation groups, regional field guides and floras, papers and dissertations frorn local. colleges and universities, and any other source available.. The -interpretation of aerial photographs and consultation with biologists having a first-hand knowledge of the. study area was also a part of this effort (4 thru 18 and Appendices B and Q. 7 Following compilation, the data was mapped,. in preliminary form, as accurately as the scale of study allowed. _ Mapping categories were. defined by the evaluation criteria themselves. For example, the habitats of rare, endangered and high interest species, the distribution of common and uncommon biotic communities, and the locations of high wildlife use areas were typical information mapped. After the preliminary mapping was completed, the data base was verified, refined and/or supplemented in the field. The extent to which this was. done depended upon the level of detail needed for the study and -the coverage and level of detail of available information. At a minimum, the veracity of the information was checked. This was the case for example, where a previous- study of adequate detail had been completed and overlapped or was adjacent to the area under study and included similar biological resources. At a maximum, a complete biological inventory was generated, as in the case where little or no information was available. Following these procedures, the entire study area was examined, the results of which formed the resource base for use in the next phase. 3. The Interpretive Phase Following the compilation of the data base, biological resources over the study area were examined and interpreted with respect to the speck evaluation criteria.- Areas of high, moderate and low sensitivity were identified in this manner which lent themselves to being mapped in an overlay_ system with the baseline inventory. In this regard, this phase combines the two preceding phases into a single product leading to the final plan - and involved no new data gathering. 4. The Analysis Phase The product of this- phase was an analysis,_ including maps and supporting data, of biological resource areas possessing varying degrees of significance. Most commonly, these areas took the form of polygons having natural features, such- as watershed boundaries, riparian zones, the base of slopes, and lake- shorelines as their boundaries. Occasionally, boundaries were defined by the presence of cultural features, such as a dam, roadway, or urban edge. In no case, however, did boundaries intentionally conform to political jurisdictions. Each polygon essentially related the evaluation criteria to specific resource types, and by their nature, to meaningful resource management units. Thus, adjacent resource areas, or units, were often assigned the same level of sensitivity, yet were found to be distinct because, they contained different types of resources and/or- they represented individual management areas. As such, each management unit received specific treatment in the • formulation of management considerations, tailored to the resources it contained. H • IIL FINDINGS A.' Biotic Communities Biotic. communities are assemblages of plant and animal species'that are found in specific physical habitats. They are ecological units containing a diverse group of organisms that exist -together in an orderly predictable manner and have ' a very close and, complex set of interrelationships. These communities are commonly identified and discussed with reference to one or two dominant plant, species and the nature of the vegetation. For the most .part, the community classification system used in this report follows that of Cheatham and -Haller (19). Eight major biotic communities exist within the- study area. These include freshwater marsh, coastal sage scrub, introduced grassland, rural -agricultural, urban, chaparral, riparian, and oak woodland (See Appendix E). 'In 1963, the California Department of Fish and Game inventoried the natural communities of -the State (20).. Table A shows the coverage and 'percent of total cover for the major community types within Orange 1k County. Undoubtedly, the distributions. of natural communities, have been reduced since 1963 by urban .and agricultural expansion. Today,. three of these communities, riparian, oak woodland and marsh are highly restricted in their distribution. Appendix E provides a discussion of the general ecology of the major biotic communities found within the study area. Each community description includes information on the significance, physiognomy, characteristic plant species, representative wildlife, distribution, and. wildlife value, as well as brief descriptions of any sub -communities.. Although insects and other invertebrates are generally omitted from the discussion, they play an important role in the ecology of each community by providing a vital link in food chains. Because the definitions of .biotic communities are .largely based on vegetation types, their - distribution follows the vegetation types mapped separately as, part of the overall MEA effort (See MEA Map Atlas). B: High Interest Species Widespread habitat loss and degradation in Southern California is now indicated by the relatively high number of rare; endangered, or protected, plant and animal species found here. Numerous species which are known or are expected to occur within the study area have been given special status. designations by Federal (21,22) and State agencies (23,14) • and private organizations (25,26). The reader should note that those designations from V] 0 TABLE A TOTAL COUNTY COVERAGE AND. PERCENT OF COUNTY TOTAL FOR MAJOR COMMUNITY TYPES FOUND WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, 1963 Percent of Community Type Coverage County Total Urban 169,719 acres. 34.0 Coastal Sage Scrub 103,280, acres 20.6 - Rural -Agricultural 85,401 acres 17.0 Introduced Grassland 74,906 acres .15.0 Chaparral 52,381 acres 10.5 Riparian 3,673 acres 0.7 Marsh' 2,150 acres 0.4 Oak Woodland 5,107 acres 10 Total = 496,617 acres2 99.22 • ' Includes fresh and saltwater marshes. 2 The remaining 3,863 acres, or 0.8 percent of Orange County are represented by lakes, bays and reservoirs, and'by coniferous forest. 10 private groups are advisory only and include: 1) bird species which are of special concern to the National Audubon Society and have been "blue listed" due to recent or' current declines in their population numbers; and 2) plant species- which are native and considered "rare and endangered" by the California Native Plant Society. Table B lists those plant and animal species which have received special status designations, and may occur within -the study area. Additional information regarding the range, regional distribution, and habitat requirements of these species may be obtained from the aforementioned literature plus regional field guides and floras (27,28,29,30). C. Areas of High Significance Based on the evaluation criteria for determining biological resource significance, there are fifteen areas of high biological significance within the study area. Each area has been . assigned a number (code) as follows: 01. Limestone Canyon 02. Bee & Round Canyons 03. ' The Sinks 04. Borrego Canyon O5. Santiago Canyon 06. San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh 07. Sand Canyon Wash 08. San Diego Creek 09.. Bonita Reservoir 10. Sand Canyon Reservoir 11. Sand Canyon Reservoir Rare Plant Habitat 12. Shady Canyon Rare Plant Habitat 1.3. Shady Canyon 14. Bommer Canyon 21. Laguna Reservoir 35. Canada Geese Foraging Area Each of these areas is described "in Appendix F, including the specific criteria each area meets, a brief discussion of the resources each area contains, and an outline of appropriate management considerations for each area. Figure 2 delineates the areas of high significance. As shown, most of the areas are entirely contained within the study area. "Some areas, however, extend outside of the. study area. Although these areas were included in the County Master Environmental • Assessment, and may overlap only a small portion of the study area, they are discussed in this report due to the importance of a coordinated, regionwide resource management strategy. 11 .0 u • U_ ¢ O w m m to ¢ O w 0- O_ 0 z E ¢ •¢x cn cn w 7 w F- w S ¢ H H 1-i m cn H z ¢ H w J H S Z F m¢ H cal H U cn i¢_ w w o m'w inau w z u.mw O m fl m tnz= w ¢ u 1-i U U Z O w m a w m cn U H Z w O S U I— t17 U c t 3 En w H W O. N N H D 0 T H C C C 0 ri N . a) ca co ro > fA m H L N N Oa. U)cnN 7 •.i m •ri N C L = m T N U C a O O H O C m C N .0 N 7 a), •( m L m H- O Ol w N a)H E (a -4 ttu Cc rw Co 4J �. N C U !) '0 c0 •rq N H tH N (1) •H U C 7 m m. •-i O m m H 7 O (a m 01 (L) 'O i-i 4- ro m 'p Cr H m U 4-)c r1. (1)L C ro T a) a) J_ O H 7 L H ro' C 0 ca 4- c O O- +1 'N CO C - m h E a1 rt E N 0_ 4- 0 m U r1 0 41 3 O C' ri 7 +1 • C C O: • -3 H C a)• a) 4- m ro N •r1 ri H Co, N U) 4_ a) Z d k U En •w - - C '�O 'C H a) 1 t O C 0' c4 0 a) 0 4J •rI' a) H - Cl ri N U 3. a) a) N a 0 1 .0 (a H 'O 4-) H O H M ri 0 3 7 m +1 M CO C U) m Of C 4- a m U a) ro ri m ro c Y Ci N •k O•w T r m U C T U C I O N -4rCl O ro •rI O1 L •H m •rl ca N H 41 E 44 H m T S m •O a) C. 7 ri r.4 H a-) CrH N H •0 3 L O +1 ro 0 7 O C '0 •ri C +1 'H •F) 4-) H +1 0 4-) {-c +1 N -• 1 m N T •rl •ri O C to •ri T a) 'i H N ri 3 N m • -0) M U) U)m a) �' N 4.3 �-t •rl 9 3 ,H C C •ri- m' a) -•rl- E -H C 'O 7 m 4-3 a) (M ro m m c O- ri' C Z' rI cn a) 4j• C Qf ro . L 41 a) H E U H H C • H� •rI C .Y- ri OI C '0 a) H +1 O a) O 'O m a) 7 • 1 m U) 7 a) •ri 4-)a) 4 •,1 4-)a >. a) 4.)'O' +1 0 N 0 4.3 fa C 0. ri U) m C 3 C .Y - C m N CO H 0 a) rl n.. ro •H- C ra 0 COro H 0 a) C H L 2 H -7a S w 7 m _a Z U ri 9 1-) Z •H Oi 4j N a) a) N N N • i ri ri a17 7 7 .O 1 y _ N . •o v a) c H 7 CD C 7 m 41 o m I t W N 1 I C H a) H O U N N k H a) O ar U U U U a) I T U, T a) m L C A a) T al r-I-I O O N •O 7 0' N `4 O 7w e. a4- n. 1 w"- on a) 1 4- .4 m N U •-4 U)m •rl _ 4-3 C 1-4 U) c U 4J C 41 U) '0 •r1 C ca •H m a) 7 •rl ri a) H I-c ri 41 N r.1_ 7 U n. •'O� E c70 U)L1 O U O C 7 N U •fN 4J CO U)3 O w N 7 U N N 7 Q O J3 7 411 U '00 L 7 N •rq 14 m co N H Y O •C ro 7 .'iri N E N U N ca .0 m N C .0 H ,r-I 1 ri m L N C -4) N H U O a) a) ro N 4J I, ro I m 0) a) 4- 0. .-i L m Y -♦ O1 m +1 ¢ rl L 0. ¢ U w •.i a) m 0 m 1-1 H 3 U 'O U .0 0 i 0 N U; a z U cn W H W a cn C 'D 14 H N 'NO +3 C m' _0 'C O d N N C cc (O "D C in m U C rl .0 +) C - a) a) cC E: O. C co al a) Um L O) cO •rl O) Of (O N - C' •H IO H .-1 ri N -O D O U 41 7 r-f •ri O 3 3 O' (O H H a •H N a) a) N A m 3 H 4- (O 'O O O C 3 "O N cN Ol Cl Ill ri 4J L 'O O O C' 4- 4- (O (7 C • cN H m C L D N 4J r7 (O ri a) a) (O H O) ri O •ri L (a a) N O O N O cn, O) cr ri • in N O +) O) a) C -Y U) U) 'D U) U) U) "I 'D Y C CO -N En H U U C ri 'D ca (O r-I (O C i-i (O (O ri ' (a 41 a) N C O (O a) •r.1 'O a] O m a) cN m (1) H C Cr O C O. m (4 a) rL 'E O. 01 O H H O) co a) O E 013 ca .0 4J (O Y 41 (O to En C (a U m mC O J •.•i C H N �z •r1 'D 3 3 (0' O (D ca H m m •r1 Y a) ca .,-I, O a) •ri C'. € Y •)'•) •r1 a) a) co '3 - ri 4- O1 .ri O a) .(p,) a) 4p1 .r 1 o O 13 'D +) H m Q U H H O +) U N J tO ca N ca Ic 3 H 4) O aN) •m N r i H HO ,O aH) L E a) E rl .0 a) a) .41 O) C •D . .HO C a) 01 a) H h O_ (1) a)- N C 3 H L 3 H cO ca C C •r) H co N 4- 4J O 'O.. C N H •rl H 'O (O •r1 Ol H, ri O C C '3 'N . •r1 N m , m a) N C N C O C N O i•i •r1 . C a) P Z - 41 1 •r1 C 'D •r1 4- 3 N 41 a) '+) 4- ra = N 3 a) to a) Z +) O N C •-I C 'D H C C a) (O >1 •ri C D i-i i C (M a) ca 7 O H H C a) ri 'D 4J C a) 'O r-I 'D ri H .-I r-I H ri S .13 H L H C O •r1 •D O f1 • 4 O a)- N ra - •ri ca C a) m a :-i O. •r1 U), O •r1 H O M -HO +) O H +� +) En •H O U) 4- O) 41 3 _D • 4j 'O. "A U) a) a) O ca •ri O CO - •r1 O` C a) -3 O -H D• C O_ 11 a) i-1 C a) •r1 •r1 'D $4 3 E cn3 E N E -H H • p N (O a) a) = 4.)H a) •r1 O) 'D U) .14 •� •H •> > N C •ri O CT,•r1 C 3 a) cm 01 C C •w Cr O1 'D 4.) 7 h H N C a) O) ri Cr •ri H C w C M a Co O. N co C C co C •H 7 C 1-1 ca H 'D 'w rl •r1 F4 -H H m O, ri (O N- H C - r=i cO cr "O ri H O ri H m H •D a) f•1 •D a) L 1) m 1-1 H a) cu H (1) O L EncO a)- a L a) (O C 4.) CO -C 4J U) a) m 3 41 M H. 41 a) H () 4-), 4.)i-i U)a) O. 3 C O. 7 C H C a) O U C ai +) 4- a) O C E C U H m M H � E V) m 3 0 a O Z E. •N m 4- in J � • 11 � �W 4-- 4- •rH 'O 'O 'O 41 4J � .N +O+ 4.) N ..NI .rU) •rW ri rt •ri a) � 7 r71 r=i r=i r3-I r-I D D D N N N C- C_ N 'D �l 4J -A 4J C -P m Q 7 N 4J m Q " 7) N O) U U - N . � .� d7-) (CO 4-) N r 1 dO) N rNI C H O W N C cn 41 .N �V m 1 i I N N W O• 3 W O. 3 tsl N C C C 14 F4 U U U N U U U Ot V U • • o cor 1 4 - 4.) °N� a 0. N U)i 1 1 W 4- a 4—_ I N ri L HI N 7 U 3 N Y ((o •-• •-• rNI U N L .y N Iq O L 4 )) N .N 3 r�i U N N :C 13 H N N L •D N U 7 H CO N L� C 41 .00 "DD r'4i � 7 7 C N NN .G C 0 C N •,-I H U O a) •r1 4j H. 1 It H+) O) 3 a) rI a) O. U L •r1 N3 3 m _ f4 v 41 v m F4 41 p al H •D k =1 H U N C 4- U) N O a) c0 N r11 U rn a) r1°i N 7 cr •D cc 1 v rn N 3 N >..rq H N aL o C m ca a) O E v i U m I N C 0 C N INi N 1-1 —1 •O •• N •r1 U) N H !0 t0 a 0 D= ri C 7 C L >� U)H N H L $4 N H •rl c D' m( C O t0 ri H •rl >+ H •ri m (a a1 > m +) G a) 4J f0 C. 4- .O H M O ri m O 'D O. E O 7 m cm :3 —1- H •D N E: :,1•O H �, R M (4 h7 O ri •D O 'O 7 7 a) ri H a) (a H a) O •� a) L L H L C D• t0 .0O. 7 C a) O_ ri C- m CL L 4-3C 01 CO Oi m CO a) 7 O U -H 'rl N 0 7 •H N O• >I- a) C t0 7 O 7 ri O H N r•1 7 a) ri U 7 CO r-I .-i H 'al -H to O H U)O .G t 7 (0 a) +� Cr H a) •r1 O• H a) H m 3 H .O 10 H U)- Q1 > H l0 > 4.3 (IS> m E: H 4- L E .0 7 C +� C a) (a, O H a)- H O 'O H a) 'O r--I •r1 H O •N •O O • -3 H t0 7 rl m O: h (L) i0 m a) 7 C O O C -J m M O •O 1 1-11 O. :-I I U' -H > N 41 (0 4JL 7 e-1 C i-i ri G I f ri •r1 7 H 4J t0 C '0 C w 4- Ol r-i '^•I N lb lb r-i m N (0, r 4 4J Cr a) C a) tO L C t0 D O 7 U al C to E N f!7 E m a) H H C t0 H C O C, 9 •r1 N 3 m "O N 3 l0 O aY —I (0 a) 01 m O1 t0 N H •ri 01 •D Y O, h H N Ot •rl ri N •r1 ri (0 L C H C .0 C t0 C 41 C C a) •D E N r•I- E N a) 4J a) - «i m t0 w •r1 ri M m •rf C H CO 4•1 H H -a LC H N ri Mri H N (0 H (0 4J • *) t0 41 E > •O 41 >.. >+ m a.) N a) (0 En a) ri 4.) E O H= O H G +) C a) td C C m l0- C G L ri (1) (n 01 01 'O N a) r1 a) Y m 7 a) a) m "D 7 m 'O N 13 m ' (n H t0 H C H C Ot •D .O •O t9 O a) O La C' E t0 E O C •r1 O C . t0 •D •r1 l0 •r1 r-I 4J 4- •rl 3 4J 4- •rl MtD N . G O 4.) a) 7 +) a) -1, •r1 ' N L 0) H N H N E 4.) -1 _I ;r1 LL O• -ri O. •D a) a) •O O N N •D O • a)- a) U) U)O t0 U) O O H ri H C a .O H C O. .O H H CO CO (0 H m -H O •ri O- U)ri (0 3 (0 3 a) m •O O 7 C > C " > C. 3 01 01 m 01 (1) O O) w (1) O 01 4J U U t0 •rl •r1 E C. C a) Z N C a) Z U)C CO 4.) C U k C Ha O r1 >. H a) ri ri a) •D r-I r1 3 H 7 O1 O N (1) m (a a) v a) _) m ri 'D .0 H t0 - H CO m .0 O O C r-i 4-) C U] 41 C Y a) H (1) U) a) a) U)N a) N, O. 4- 0 >, ri C 7 C 7 O "O a) t0 N H m >. a) H M>. a) N 3 ri t0 H 4 _ O 4- H O H C H a) H W. O. lb H t0 O. t0 H H a) m •2 E 2 H 4- . O :3 4- .O t0 m C m E O E /a E O E m 4- Z L 1 . C' - O C 41 O N •r1 U) m al N N Q• a) a) d k i c O .•Nt .rN1 •N rN1 ; rrfi r-I ri ri r^-1 I � 4- '••I ai a) a) a) N m a) 7 7 - 7 7 rl ri m �-1 r•1 ; ri r•1. .-i ..-I .O ri I L O O. .O .O to .O a) m - 7 C 0) •I-) v (a W I N 1 I w y a) a) O a a N 41 U LL)) O) U CCO r-l' • -)-) U U CL W 4-- 0. IA w I 1 N ul C •m O E. Oci lq 7 rU-1 N O CO U E O O a) U L)rq -H14 Ii 1-4 It. (a v k v H �E) a C �+ O X H (a a) H L O U U) 4-) -H . I L01 U N a) •C C � Rya 'D X N O C 1N( Y N O U U 'A L)i 11 U •N v N E: CC i N O N C •rl cr rI H- C � � -. N d $44 U 4J •k m E CC M 14 � C N N M N a 7 C 13 UI 'O C H 'O - N O' 1 C O 13 r 4 N O O- N cc 0 co E E tTO N 4-) O 14 N. a1 4- C• N m' A m H H co " 9. 7 >. +� >. -H 'co 4- A a) O = H U c0 O L N a) (1) +1 4- •I-) N C m U m U N c0 co m r-I m m N 4J m +1 H H a) c0 O H 3 a) c0 V) 0 10 4J 1-1 4- 4-) •O 'O 4.3 a)- ri . 4J O co O 01 41 •O a7 E; O- O- L 3 N w a) .0 U)H f4 C •r1 O al O U)• -H 4- H 7 O E H 41 pO c0 14 OO 4J U) a) 'O rl N m H C `O' N 3 C E E co 9 N 3 rrq S. 7 Z N 4H- H N r•i N 41 N W U) coH C a)•H ` Im Cr H H r-I O C >. c0 Z' C Z Cn (0 O a) c0 4.) C- E: c0 (0 U 'O U co- H H E 71 a) H M. 7 H U 4_ $a 'O CO .w f4 � r, a _ -H O a) 4-) .w -IC. a) cr a) a) O- 'D• a) :3 a) O. E H a) C C •ri a) 0. C_ E c G O Ca. C O C H '4- a, C Mm•ri U) a m co En 4-) 41 7 co3 O c N •rl m N U 14 • •rCi +� � t�0 3 co O 41 coo H a 01 4j .w c0 L 4J w � a) L 4-)U)1 > (a L O 01 a) c0 L +� E a1 O .N 41 .0 c N 0 41 c >. to c0 N H N 4J H l0 N L +1 H 01 O H N U O f-c -W a) H a) (1) N 'O 14 H a) co 'O E a.) C C •ri M 41 C to C c0 a) C a) 7 1 4- CO cn •w E: C c a) -1 O •rl L� c0 •ri a) 7 C •C 'O a) a) E:O 'C I-1 C U)41 •r1 N a) C •-) U)m a) A 0' O ri Co •r1 C r1 C ri C .0 0 >. C —1 4.) H (n H' •H 7 H c0 U) 0 N N -I - N •ri 4J N •r1 4 ra) •,I (33 C U) U).4 10 a) (a E: •r.l 7 .0 m a) )'7 m C a) 7 H Q a) 7 7 H U O -W0 (4 O' U) c0 • Cr . f4 0, > 01 Cr c c0 1N ' 01 C 41 H C M, a) c0 C' . c0 m 41 41 c0 U c 1-I a) r1 O N 10 " L ri f-1 m O H a1 r•1 a) V) IA H O () t7 H O 0) () r-, 7 H O C a) r, 0 C H O m H •r9 41 a) N .0 () O- U) 41 N +) 4J O 41 M 1.1 01 a)a) co H c 14 m H N CHO ,C1 C H eC•I cC0 .c•1 N -C I -I cc0 4.) 0 � rr4 � rCl m . m ul) E m Z E: 33 c0 01 3> VI -� U) 41 M V) N E: Z U) M3 c0 hl - a) d N •-4i ri rq r e-1 - m ay > a) > 7 ri ri O 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I a) a) a) a) w 7 14 N aHi 01 U)U) N N U L tu m cco m m o •14 m N W O- 1 W 1 U) U) N' C H . w U N 41 01 U 41 C U '+N1 N 1 c0 •r-1 4J U co •-Ti a) r +1 U) W 4- 0. <r p- HO- 1 I I I W 4-- 0. I a) CL ri 7 ^ U)•C ^ •�ri -i N1 •r c 3 H N ^ •H ^ N .-. H U)H O ^ .,4 -4 a) c0 'C 7 m � 'C• .0 H • U) C H H a) 4.) •H U lO r-I C c0 C c0 C a) L a) U N a) N c0 ^ O. N H c0 4-) X 3 U •H -W -I 3 H 4J C cr N L N H -C - a O E � co -4 H a) O +1 H U) 4- r-1 a) r♦ ri O L -4 •,1 U U. (0 N 7 H a) =1 E 10 U) c0 � -H 'N r1 U c O O r-I U) L 0 -4 7 > U) 0 7 N H 7 U N O O 8 a) -0 r•i •ri C 7 O N a) ri ri U ri -H a) -I > H m U) (1) 7 a) ri H cO to H a) ) N N rl U 10 4.1 O U) O ri •ri c0 •ri C O- f-1 'O O '0 ri •ri r-1 -0 - -H l0 +) U) N c0 0 7 C f4 H C cd ri c0 •-I C r1 O C C c0 4_ C7 4- ri H a) 7 •r1 H a H rI a) . C 1 E H H O N 41 r-i c a) I a) QI r-I 1 r_, 4J c0 O +1 4- CO +1 0 N co 41 .c N >. L L I 4-' A 4- +) co, t 41 O- r1 v L tr 01 v ri ,J -I v ' U C-1 7 v 3 U O— m Z C -� H J O •e• •ri V) r-i v 01 F a) �• 1-1 U EEO U) •-01 N u N Ll a F- c 'D L N —1 L Y .O m •H .O CD N O H •w C cca k H 4-) 7 4.) a) - •rl al p - 14 N ci N U) to ( 3 H '0 MO 4-- O H C a) 7 U N m m U a) C ,L. -H+1 - al a 111 C m e C m r U H 01 01 H O 01 7 a) 0 rL N O 01 (U m m 4.)U)r-I - m O- O. 4- (n U) U) a.. � N. r o .w c •ri r-f r i 1 a) ac°i' 'C H a) . "ri +� H 4.) C rl > m m A i- m r O m m 7- m a) 0 4J d-) .4-)'r-1 U)- 1 i-1 41 a) O co L c N N Y a) C r 4 U) C C L ca y1 H 01 7 m H m O (a U O •ri -14 m ir-1 ri m, m O m H U) 01 O rl Ol O N p1 U U H 01 H 3, N. U '01 a)-' O c r m E m' G C H O. C C C E. H L c •ri +1 4J m •r1 •ri L 'O —1 ni Co •ri 41 4-1 (n t 41 ((a 4J C 4J 4-) +1 ai N H 41 13 41 C 'O 4-) cca +1 c a) .0 C m m H C - c 3 H 3 G O C ' (U a) C 41 •r•i m H 3 'p a) -L O (1) m v m a) cc v C of -.O O m a) • v O 3 (1) v 1 H H a) L m H o .0 m .r.1 v -H r•-1 H 0 a. 3 -H H •ri O H r-+ to r-f a) •r•I •ri 0' +1 U) •ri Co (1) N r1 N 1-1 a.) a) N m 'N ri M. -•ri . H (1) U) 4.)C 1 4J 7 cA L U am ) ) am -H Z a) a) J') >. 3 m a) m aY •ri m f4 (1) c H H $4 N H 4-1 H- m 4J r--1 H ni 14 4-) a) U A H ri a) 7 >. v-t H. 7 •ri :3r I M >. H 7 -H, (1) '-I H Ol +1 Ol rl > m (3l 0 Of U 0 m a) v, cm m 01 0 C r > c N a) 01 -m C H C r-i 7 c r-I H CL c r 01 C O L al 01 H Cl. 7 .00 41 C ri G. -H rl 01 H H O. ,I >+ r-I 7 U •O U ri m 10 7 (1) O _ ri 'O 7 -4 'O tN 7 C r-I N 'O H m 7 a) a) 0 '0 r-1 "H U N -r-1 a) 41 +1 a) O m m O a) a) a) (1) O 4J •4- '(1) 'm O a) H CO H C m a) H a) H 41 > a1 CO 10 a) H C m'13 a) ' H 01 m m H -H m> r♦ C m H r m +1 H C L m •rl -+1 0 a) C CL O 41 H m C to HC . m 41 -I H C m O. m H a) m C ,rl C +1 O Ip .� a) Ol N d N N- N co O' IOd N N 41 Ij ai - IT H H C O N ri N ri - . Ill) •r-1 Ill ri, N r4 N, ri N r{ 0 N r-I 4- r-1 r-i r-I r-I ri r1- r-I a) N m a) a) a) m m a) a) • O r-=f '1-0 r=1 r-q r71 r-I r 4 r-f —1 L •.• m O J3 i 1 L' D .0 m L 1 .• H O N0 '0 c a) (1) 7 N N N 0 C .0 7 m C ri' N 1 1 I 1 U W r-1 I I I 1 C C N N U LN1 'O C G C- U U U U CD l • • • • C CL CL C N 1 N aa1 ul 1 1 ) I a) rmi R 7 r-m1 U .. .1U.1 1Ca •'i N m 14 01 7 3 E O IaEEM N 4-3 14 m •-i —4 -H rn > m H 4- •.f +1 . + 3 N C 4.3 1 •� 11 •H N Q f0-1 M C H H U a 411 v 14 v v v � O N L U N ^ - C O Y _ ca •N O N 7 4J rr-1 N NH N U) L 3 m N N O O .�0 m to •ri m 7 a) 3 'OH c ri C •ri Ol J ei $4 a •.U'I Fr- 4J to . r-1 v •ri v 3 v NN O) N m t m r0 0 m N .0 ccu T 14 m a) O a) m N lV U c C C L 7 7 C N ccu O m CL •? 3 m Co m H U N 7 r4 'O J3 C r1 L rr Y 4J a) m C 7 N N N 41 'D 4-1 E m U ri Z H m H HF4 4- N c m O rl 7 V r 1 U •rl m 4- m m d 41 N N � U C H � • 1 1-4 17 M 4J c H M m 7 (1) H e .O 41V H N m 3 O1 O. L) H cn a) •ri a) 01 co O CO � •ri .O m N 7 C H •01 r-I L H N N o' m r1 9 E c - 41 r-I c P .N cm G f4 m a) d0 O m •H •rt m I•H m a) 1-•1 O U c 3 O N c C N +1 4-) G' +) m c N C C •r1 N (a C G 01 3 (i) a) H a) a) C 'o m - 1-4 m O C F4 4J m m 'O m 'D •rt H e O c U7 O O a) -H 4- .r1 - 0 •H m O m U 1-1•rt -1 r 4) 4J Y N a) N C (D O" 4J a) •ri Co U •H U a) F4 () m m CO H C C L O rq H D. H H •r1 •r1 +3 N a) � L U) 10 H 13 H > 4-3 QI 4J OI N OI > C 4-) C T T F4 H C ...i c m C C m C O ri m U H 3 r♦ 1-1 H r♦ Co f4 I q a) L c N. a) O 'D a) m cm m al N 'D •r1 (a U 41 ri a) H a ) a) 41 N •r1 O a) NCO C ri a) a) a) 'o a) m c m N U N OI rl •ri H L H C H C rt i•1 'a)4 C O c m 3 m 3 m m m m H D1 L O. H N 4 .0 4J � 7 7 7 7 D ..O .0 I i I I t t u • CJ H cz Cf)7 m a) as C m v CD 1 I 1 w a) 'O 'H C a) m 01 C H D i 1 f m W 4-) a) 'O c 7 N 7 4 m 41 I N I I m C (1) (a dd •ri U LH a) • +1 o a H E I o_ m I T m m 4_ w o +1 o v $4 a) N R H 3 N > L N Z N COJ H N, 4- c C. c m a m •rt = U T T -H to 4 ri 7 a) N a) L 41 cca 41 ri U E- N G c 4 � O N 4J CO •r1 N • 1 U N T ,ci T O N .Co C • 1 C O N 4 N 1-1 L CL .ct Ii r.1 3 'o 'O m m 'D H 'O 14 c a) c a) m O1 m 01 c C CD H M H 13 = W Ir W ,W N N a) OI Of C c m m 13 c C w w rn N c •N •=1 OH Ef) F4 E O r. 'OO 7 . N E 4- H •ri E > _ �^. H H U N 7 O Y ''ri a) m, m m m •rt 7 4-) ..0 Um 4.3 H H C O. 3 a) m CO 71 •rl a) •rt O Cl) L m 3 c N 13 C '0 C Q1 •ri 4J .O H 'm 4= 4- U L O m C •.i F4 0 01 Y m 4 I -I a) U N H> -Cm E m F4 a) H 4-3 N E al c 4-1 C H m m N to N O ri 7 (n (U >, O a) 'D a) m N C H •H U I i-. H 4-) '0 N r1 .-1 H Cl a) H O. C N 3 cn r-I 'D m a) U H 7 r q O a) 4j •,I U) U) m 7 O m a) H >+ L m r1 L 4J r•i m N> 7 > r-1 H N 'o E 64 0 4J 4J a L 4J L N A U m H E m m FI m N O H C C E C U H •rl a) m m m N U m .w C N m• 5 7 m. L m m m m O H •rt O. H H d a) H O •ri Co O N U N rq a) 3 f4 10 H O. •D N a) U) U O c c U• 4 H 'O m 111 'o I a) O O OI N a) L H m > • CO ' 3 C 3 •i-1 L E c N H O H o C a) O H E H m o O a) O U N H m m O 4J L 4- CO Ot L m O c 7 ri C) ri 14 N Q 'D O. O.-O_ - N O_ •r1 m c U > +J U 7 C) �,.{ v r•i •..• m �•• r 1 .•. N v m ri v Co y r-I v O1 v CDG1 O - (a mm U U 0) - i WJ Q m C m W N O m of O - 14 1 U -4 H •.1 N C S r «i U) 41 -4 c 9 m CO 1n O N M >. U +) CO C •H -4 to U O. En .0 C O 4J O H 4J 4- C to sp0 +? H O • I O C 3 3: C -1 J3 Ot .-1 w 7 'O m U H •4 .H C U S 41 N N C 7 (A N '•i O m 4.1 4. 01 E O C m O O.-H Nw •o m 'D H 71 tu Q1 a W m Z ro c (x w N (D N '�O C v m E I r v i n e M E A Figure 2 Biotic P®p-d• December 16, 1984 Updated: January 21.1986 Resources 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet Irvine Corporate Limits "' Sphere of Influence i 6 • D. Areas of Moderate Significance Based on the evaluation criteria, there -are nineteen areas of .moderate biological significance. Each area has been assigned a number (code) as follows: 15. Limestone Canyon buffer 16. Bee & Round Canyon buffers 17. Aqua Chinon Wash 18. Borrego Canyon buffer 19. Rattlesnake Reservoir 20. Siphon Reservoir 21. Lambert Reservoir 22. San Diego Creek -_ Downstream Reach 23. Woodbridge Lakes 24. San Diego Creek buffer 25. San Diego Creek - Upstream Reach 26. Sand Canyon Wash buffer 28. Bonita Reservoir buffer 29. Sand Canyon Reservoir buffer 30. William R. Mason Regional Park Lakes 31. Shady and Bommer Canyon buffers 32. - Shady- Canyon tributary . 33. Eucalyptus windrows 34. Sand Canyon Oak trees Each. of these areas is also described in Appendix F, and is also delineated in Figure 2. Here again, some of the delineated areas extend outside of the study area and are consistent with the County Master Environmental Assessment. E. Areas of Low Significance All remaining areas not delineated as either high significance .or- moderate significance, are of low significance. No further discussion of these: resource areas is provided since these areas do not contribute importantly to the continuance of biological diversity and productivity; thus, they do not require management considerations. 20 • IV: WHY PRESERVE BIOTIC DIVERSITY? The underlying goal -of the evaluation criteria, is, to provide direction and guidelines for preserving biotic diversity, as it exists today in. the county and the region. But why preserve biotic diversity? What is its value? Why should it weigh in land use decisions?. These are questions that are often asked by developers who must "satisfy a myriad of environmental concerns before obtaining a building permit, by land owners who may be asked to sell their land for a new park or natural area,, and by tax -payers who must pay the bill. Die-hard environmentalists often respond that man has a moral commitment. to preserve these'resources; that- these resources have their own inherent right to survive, regardless of their apparent degree -of usefulness to man. The belief that biotic resources should. be preserved for their own sake has .been transformed into an official policy by the California. State Legislature in the Fish and Game Code: "The Legislature finds and declares ..... that' -it is the policy of this state......to perpetuate all species of wildlife for their intrinsic and ecological values, as well as for their direct benefits to man." Although this argument has its merits, it is not convincing to most people who- mise questions about biological significance. However, there are reasons for preserving biological diversity that are based on ,current scientific evidence, and should be of utmost concern to -the public and its representatives. Biological diversity must be preserved to maintain natural ecosystems, many of which -are of direct benefit to man. Natural vegetation slows runoff velocities during heavy storms, preventing severe erosion problems and flooding. Slower moving water can infiltrate the soil more easily, thus increasing groundwater recharge. This is a:direct economic benefit of natural ecosystems. Another direct benefit is the production of -game and fish species. In Orange County, hunting and fishing are primarily recreational activities, but they are still pursued by thousands of County residents. Coastal wetlands are important links_ to marine ecosystems. They act as natural filters, removing many pollutants before exiting to the sea; These areas also serve as breeding grounds for the majority of marine fish that are commercially harvested. Natural habitat adjacent to agricultural areas supports insects thatpollinate crops and others that prey on crop pests. Riparian habitat supports hawks. and owls that help control populations of rodents and rabbits, in and around agricultural areas. Natural communities are also important in recycling nutrients, decomposing 21 0 . _ organic material, and maintaining and producing healthy top soils, all of which are important to man. These are just a ,few of the direct benefits received from healthy ecosystems. The natural environment contains a plethora of -plant and animal species. Each one possesses certain genetic and biochemical characteristics that .make it unique, and therefore a potentially priceless resource. The unique features of each species are available to be used by, man as his needs demand and his technology evolves. •These qualities may someday be transformed into important chemical, medical, commercial, industrial, and agricultural products or practices that could significantly benefit man. An excellent example of this is the fungus Penicillium. Today it is common knowledge that the antibiotic, penicillin, is produced by .this organism, and that it has saved millions of lives as well as revolutionized the medical profession., When and where such an important species may be found is absolutely impossible to predict.. It could be as rare as the California condor or as common as the :housefly. It could be as yet undiscovered iri. the heart of the Amazon rain forest, or found* world' -wide. It could even be the Orange County turkish rugging, California least tern, Laguna Beach liveforever, or light-footed clapper rail, all of which are found in Orange County,_ 'and are on rare or endangered species lists. Research is going on throughout the world to uncover the secrets that plants and animals possess, and to use this information to benefit mankind. Along the. -same lines, there is a need to preserve biotic diversity for agricultural research. It should be remembered that our entire food supply comes from plants and animals that were once part of the natural world. We have taken these organisms_ and selectively bred them for desirable features. As a result, we have produced crop strains that are highly productive, disease resistant, and adapted to the rigors of the climates in which they grow. To do this, man has continually had to go back_ to :nature and find, wild -growing strains possessing traits .that could be used to produce .crops with higher yields. The ability to do this has allowed our agricultural productivity to rise by ,continually remaining one step. ahead of the pests and diseases that destroy crops, and by increasing efficiency of growth. However, man has only been able to do this because wild strains _of old crops and undiscovered new crops still exist in the wild. This would not be possible if areas did not exist in their natural state. Since it is not possible to predict when, or where these species will be found, the most prudent action is to preserve as much of the existing. biotic diversity as possible. Whenever a species becomes extinct, a potential reservoir of information is lost. Another agricultural aspect of preserving diversity that has become increasingly important • in recent years is biological control. Most of today's ecologists would agree that the simpler an ecosystem, the more likely it is to be upset and undergo drastic rises and 22 declines in productivity. Agricultural fields are monocultures with little diversity. They have traditionally been maintained by the application of insecticides and fungicides that control pests and diseases. However, two important changes are taking place that are gradually changing the situation. First, some pests and diseases are developing resistances to chemical control which may eventually leave them ineffective and require that stronger, toxins be developed. Second, it has been discovered that harmful insecticides and fungicides accumulate in the food chain and have widespread effects. Biological control can accomplish the same effects without the application'of these artificial substances. The . technique involves the identification of'organisms that prey 'on the pest in question. The predator can then be raised in captivity in large numbers and released into the field. The method has been used successfully in the past, and shows great potential. However, the scientist must be able to go into the wild and locate natural predators. If enough natural areas do not exist, it might not be possible to find such a species, and the method cannot be used. A less dramatic but still important.- reason for preserving natural -areas ' is 'for their recreational and aesthetic qualities. A large percentage of suburbanites exit the cities on Weekends and vacations to escape into more natural surroundings. The fact that this use is real and growing becomes obvious when one tries to get a campground in a state park or finds out at a trailhead in the Sierra Nevada that the number of people in the backcountry is regulated and a wilderness permit is required. Perhaps the most important reason for attempting to preserve natural diversity is that man exists as a part of the world-wide ecosystem. He is not a separate entity that functions on an independent plane, but is a part of all the pathways, food. webs, and nutrient cycles of the ecosphere. As such, he is dependent on them for his survival and should be concerned that they remain intact. As urban and agricultural growth continues; species become extinct, and areas of natural habitat are lost. The net result is that local, regional, and world ecosystems become a little less complex and more likely to undergo fluctuations. At some point in the future, too much habitat or too many species maybe lost, and the pathways, webs, and cycles that support the ecosystem may collapse. Nobody can predict what these levels are or when they might be reached. The way to prevent this possibility is to preserve as much biotic diversity as possible. From these arguments, it should be evident that there are important reasons for preserving diversity that go beyond a moral commitment. Natural areas provide many direct and indirect benefits to man. They provide a place to pursue recreational activities, and they help maintain the balance of the ecosystem in which we all live. In addition, they serve as outdoor classrooms where children from urban areas can be taught about their natural • environment. In the future, these areas may serve as important ecological laboratories that can be used by man to better understand the world around him. They can be used as 23 s • environmental monitoring stations to detect the impacts that man is having on his environment, and may even serve as models for man-made ecosystems if population growth and resulting expansion should upset critical environmental forces. Which communities and which species have the potential to provide us with valuable information cannot be predicted. This is often used as an excuse to avoid the- question of preserving diversity by those who do not understand its values. Instead, it should be the grounds for a policy of attempting to preserve as much diversity as possible. Every habitat thavis destroyed and every species that is lost is information that cannot be regained. This is part of the reason for concern -over the fate of rare and endangered species. _ In order to see the need for preserving species and communities, regardless of -their currently recognized value, we should ask ourselves these, questions. Would it have been possible to foresee the future value of the common bread mold, Penicillium, sixty years. ago? Without knowing this, would it have been possible to save it if it had been a rare or endangered species? Can we predict the potential value of any species or ecosystem? And finally, shouldn't biotic diversity be preserved? Whetherthe final answer is based on moral commitment, scientific interest, ecological principles; or sound economic sense, the answer�is yes. 24 V. REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED References 1. Edaw, Inc. 1981. County of Orange Master Environmental Assessment Phase.I - Constraints Mapping 'and Analysis. County of Orange, EMA, Santa Ana, CA. 2. England and Nelson. 1976. Los Angeles County _Significant Ecological Area Study, Land Capability/Suitability Analysis, Vol. III, Los Angeles County Dept. Regional Planning, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Eagles, P.F., J. 1981. "Environmentally ' Sensitive Area Planning in Ontario, Canada', Journal of the American Planning Association, No. 47, pp 313-323: 4. California Department of Fish and Game, 1985. Letter dated February 15, 1985 from Mr. Fred A Worthley regarding biological resources within the Irvine planning area. .5. England and Nelson, 1976. Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Replacement Site Biologist's Report. - Prepared for the Orange County Environmental Management Agency.. - Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency. 6. England and Nelson, 1976. Peters's Canyon Reservoir Regional Park Bound= Study Biological Assessment. Prepared for the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, 7. Jones and Stokes, 1975.' Irvine .Coastal Project Area Wildlife Habitat and Corridors System,. Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency. 8. Jones and Stokes, 1975. Irvine Coastal Project Area: Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat Maps. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency.. 9. Jones and Stokes, 1974. Preliminary Biological Inventory and, Management Recommendations, Irvine Coastal Project .Area. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency. 25 0 b • 10. Phillips Brandt Reddick Inc., 1979. -Trabuco Unit Specific Plan. Biological Assessment. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency. 11. Marsh; Gordon, 1973. Wildlife and Habitat Inventory Irvine General Planning Program. Prepared for the City of Irvine. 12. .Larry Seeman Associates and Phillips Brandt Reddick, 1979, Master Environmental Assessment for the Irvine Ranch Water District. Prepared for .the Irvine Ranch Water District. 13. Phillips Brant Reddick, 1979. Conrock-Trabuco Resources Biological Assessment. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental' Management Agency. 14. Phillips Brant Reddick, 1980. Biological Resources of the Foothill Transportation Corridor. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency. 15. EDAW Inc:, 1982. Foothill 'Corridor Biological Assessment. Prepared for the - County ,of Orange, Environmental Management Agency. 16. EDAW Inc., 1982. Irvine Coast Planning Unit Development and Dedication Plan Biological, Assessment. Prepared for the County of Orange; Environmental Management Agency. 17. EDAW Inc., 1982. Bommer and Shady Canyons General Plan Amendment Biological Assessment. Prepared for the Irvine Company. 18. Community Planning Services, 1985. Environmental Documents Index. Irvine Master Environmental Assessment. Prepared for the City of Irvine. 19. Cheatham, N.A. and J.R. Haller. 1976. "An Annotated List of California Habitat Types." Unpublished 20. California Department of Fish -and Game, 1966. California Fish and Wildlife Plan 3 Vol., Sacramento, CA. 26 21. -U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50 Wildlife and Fisheries, Washington, D.C. 22. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Threatened - Wildlife of the United States. Washington, D.C-. 23. California Department of Fish and Game, 1977. Status Designations of California - Animals. Sacramento, California. 24. California Department of Fish and Game. 1980. At The Crossroads: -A Report on California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. 25. Smith, J:P.; Jr., and York, R., 1984. InvenIM of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants -of -California. California Native Plant Society, Spec. Publ. No..1. Berkeley, CA. 26. Arbib, R. 1-980. "The Blue List for 1981". American -Birds. 27. Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 28. Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider: 1976. A Field Guide- to- the Mammals. - Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 2-9. -Peterson, R.T. 1941. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 30. Munz, P. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, CA. Persons Consulted The following people are credited with having provided information and ideas which contributed to the preparation of this report. 1. Mr. Jack Fancher, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2. Mr. Steve Kimple, California Department of Fish and Game 27 i 3. Mr. Carl Wilcox, California Department of Fish and Game 4. Mr. Eric Jessen, County of Orange Environmental Management Agency 5. Mr. Pete Bloom, Raptor Biologist 6.- Ms. Karlin Marsh, Biologist 28 APPENDIX A APPLICABLE LAWS AND PLANNING POLICIES Federal Endangered Species Preservation -Act of 1966 This act -gave authority to the Secretary of the Interior to. declare as, endangered those wildlife species which are native to the United States and are ,threatened with extinction. Federal Endangered Species Act of 1913 This act strengthened many of the provisions - set forth in the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Administered by ,the United States Fish- and Wildlife Service, this legislation charges all Federal agencies with the direct responsibility for ensuring that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not either,jeopardize the continued -existence of Endangered or Threatened -Species, or, result in the destruction or adverse modification of the habitats of Endangered or Threatened Species. State, local, and private: actions that do not involve Federal funding or approval do not fall under the .terms of this act. Should the City of Irvine become involved in an action coming under the terms of this act, the" action must involve consultation with .the United States Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the ,Interagency Cooperation Regulations set forth in the act. Briefly defined, consultation involves examination of -the action to determine whether or not it will jeopardize the species or its "critical habitat". Once this determination has been, made, modifications to the action may be required to receive Federal monies and/or -approval. The greatest likelihood of this occurring, exists- within the San Joaquin Marsh. where Federally funded or approved actions may jeopardize light-footed clapper rail, _California brown pelican and California least tern populations. The, possibility also exists within potential habitat for Laguna Beach live -forever, many -stemmed live -forever, and salt marsh bird's beak, where undiscovered populations of these plants- may exist within the study area. No other Federally recognized Endangered or Threatened Species are known or are expected to occur within the study area. Listings of Endangered and Threatened .Species of plants and animals are revised and amended at irregular intervals in the Federal Register. The most current listings may be obtained from the Federal Office of Endangered Species. A - 1 Other Federal Species Designations tions Since 1965, . several reference documents regarding Endangered and Threatened Species have been published by the Department of the Interior. These publications contain . information on native wildlife species that -are either Endangered or are- candidates for Endangered Species status. Categories used in these documents include "threatened"; "peripheral", and "status undetermined". These are not official status designations and are used only for reference purposes as a means to stimulate interest, impart knowledge, and solicit data about species of special concern which may be used to -compile the official list. Also, Federal protection is given to migratory birds through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended; to bald and golden eagles through the Bald Eagle Act, as amended; and to marine mammals through the Marine Mammal. Protection Act. Basically, these acts make it unlawful to "take" or possess any species afforded such protection. It is highly .doubtful that actions undertaken by the City should constitute a taking or possession of such species. Additionally, there are no provisions for habitat protection under these acts. Federal Wetlands Protection Policies The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92=500, and the Clean Water Act, P.L. 95- 217, and specifically Section 404, regulate the: discharge of any pollutant or the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters of the United -States including adjacent wetlands. The Section 10 permit program of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 authorizes works or structures in navigable waters. The Section 10 and 404 permit programs are administered by the Corps of Engineers in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In essence, the' discharge of dredged material, the placement of fill and structures, or the conduct of activities that could impact or obstruct the navigable capacity of a waterway or alter its chemical, physical and biological integrity is prohibited unless permitted by the Corps of Engineers.. On May 24, 1977, Executive Orders 11988, Flood Plain Management, aiid' 11990, Protection of Wetlands, were issued. These orders directed all Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, all actions associated with the modification or destruction of floodplains and wetlands, or actions that may, increase the risk of loss of life or property, resulting from flood or storm damage. This protection effort was necessary because man's continued alteration of, and ,presence within, floodplains has resulted in property damages in excess of 3 billion dollars annually. Disaster relief and rehabilitation often exceeded I billion dollars annually. These damages continue to occur despite substantial expenditures for structural flood control measures. . Federal wetlands protection policies would apply to actions undertaken within the San Joaquin Marsh and San Diego Creek inland to the area around the Laguna Freeway. A-2 California Species Preservation Act of 1970 Prior to the enactment of this bill, California law had fully protected a limited number of birds and mammals. Such- protection was granted only through legislative approval and included unique or attractive species which were not necessarily threatened with extinction. This act provided that the California Department of Fish and Game shall prepare biennial inventories and reports on the status of the State's threatened birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes, and establish criteria for the classification, of these -species as Rare or Endangered. The act also revised the list of fully protected birds and mammals and added fully protected fishes, amphibians and reptiles. Under this law, no such designated species or parts thereof may- be taken, possessed, or sold within the State of California without authorization by the California Fish and Game Commission and/or the Department of Fish and Game. There is no provision for the preservation of the habitat of these species under this act. As a result, the City of Irvine is not likely to fall under the provisions of this -law.. California Endangered Species- Act of 1970 This act defines Rare and Endangered Species and gives the Fish and Game Commission the authority to declare which species fall into these categories. - The law prohibits the taking, possession, or selling of any bird, mammal, fish, amphibian .or reptile, or -parts thereof, that the Commission determines to be Rare or Endangered. Many of these had already received. protection under the California Species- Preservation Act. The act has recently been amended to include plant species, and .an Endangered P1ant.Program was recently initiated. Unlike the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California law does not currently include consideration for the habitat of Rare or Endangered Species. However, the only species designated by the State that is not also found on the Federal list is the Belding's savannah sparrow, which occurs at the San Joaquin Marsh. Other California Fish and Wildlife Protection and Conservation Laws, Under the provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Chapter 6, Sections 1601 and 1.603, actions which may alter streariibeds or lakes from which fish and wildlife resources derive benefit requires the review and approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Briefly, the process involves submitting plans indicating the nature of a project to the Department. These are submitted .as 1601 or 1603 permit applications. Normally, within thirty days the Department will return the plans with a proposal for reasonable modifications in the project which would allow for the protection and continuance of fish • and wildlife resources. Within fourteen days of receipt of the Department's proposal, the affected party notifies the Department as to the proposal's acceptability; if unacceptable, A-3 a • -arbitration is necessary. All major drainages, generally defined as a. "blue 'line" on U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 minute quad sheets, within the study area fall under the provisions of this chapter. California Coastal Act Sections 30230, 30231 and 30236 of this act requires that marine resources be preserved and restored; that special protection be given to areas of special_ biological .significance; and that the quality of coastal water be maintained for the protection of -human health. This act also requires the control of runoff,. the prevention of ground water depletion, the prevention of interference with surface flow, the encouragement of waste water reclamation, and the maintenance of riparian buffers along drainages and mitigation when natural drainages are significantly altered. Additionally, Section 30240 .of the Coastal Act requires -that sensitive habitat areas be protected against 'significant disruption and that projects .in adjacent areas be designed to prevent the degradation of these habitats. All portions of the coastal area falling within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Cominission are subject to these policies: A-4 0 APPENDIX B SOURCES REVIEWED FOR ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 1976 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA STUDY American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1963.. Natural Areas as Research Facilities. American Association for the Advancement of Science,_ Wash:, D.C. Anonymous., 1.975. Code of Federal Regulations - Title 43 - Public Lands:. Interior. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash., D.C. Association of Bay Area Governments..1975. Areas .of Critical Environmental Concern. Association of Bay Area Governments, Berkeley, Ca. 83pp. Bartholomew, G.A., T.R. Howell, J.G. Morin, M.E. Mathias, and H.J. Thompson. 1972. Statement to -the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission on Preservation of Natural Areas. Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission. 4pp. Bury, R.B. 1975..Conservation of Non -Game Wildlife in California: A Modef Programme. Biol. Conserv. 7:199-210. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. 1974. The Coastal Land Environment. Calif. Coastal Zone Conserv. Comm., -Long Beach, -Ca. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. 1974. The Marine Environment. Calif. Coastal Zone Conserv. Comm., Long Beach, Ca. California Department of Fish and Game. 1974. Supplement toFish and Game Code. Calif. Dept. General Services, Documents Section, Sacramento, Ca. 53pp. California Department of Fish and Game. 1973. -Fish and Game Code. Calif, Dept. General Services, Documents Section, Sacramento; Ca. 239pp. California Department of Fish and Game. 1966. California Fish and Wildlife Plan. Calif.. Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, Ca. 3 vols. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 1974. Maps and Publications for Areas of Potential Environmental Critical Concern. Calif. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Sacramento, Ca. California Natural Areas Coordinating Council. 1975. Inventory of California Natural 9 Areas. Calif. Natural Areas Coordinating Council. B - 1 California Water Resources Control Board. 1974. Resolution No. 74-28. Designating Areas of Special Biolo ig cal Significance ,ABAS). Calif. Water Resources Control Board. Center for Geographic Analysis, Institute for Environmental Studies. 1975. Data Needs and Data Gathering for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. EIS Rep. Nos. 53-55. Center for Natural Areas. 1975. A Conservation and Recreation Plan for Santa Catalina Island. Center for Natural Areas, Wash., D.C. 71pp. Duncan, Jones, Ribera, and Sue. - 1972. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, Santa Cruz County, California. Santa Cruz Co. Planning- Department.' Santa Cruz, Ca. Gehlbach, F.R.. 1975. Investigation, Evaluation, and Priority Ranking of Natural Areas. Biol. Conserv. 8:79-88. Goldsmith, F.B. 1975 The Evaluation of Ecological Resources in the Countryside for Conservation.Purposes. Biol Conserv. 8:89-96. Kunit, E.R., and K.S. Calhoon. 1973. Landscape Preservation Study for the- Southwest_ Mountain and Valley Province. Calif Dept. Parks and Rec. 69pp. Kunit, E.R., and K.S. Calhoon. 1973. Landscape Preservation StudyAppendix: The Southwest Mountain and Valley Province. Calif. Dept. Parks and Rec. 154pp. Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. 1976., Conservation Element: Statement of Needs Opportunities, and Goals. L.A. Co. Dept. of Regional Planning. Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning. 1975. La Habra Heights- Community General Plan and EIR. L.A. Co. Dept. of Regional Planning. Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. 1975. Preliminary Draft; - Conservation Element, Los Angeles County General Plan. L.A. Co. Dept. of Regional Planning. 57pp. Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. 1965. The Malibu Area. L.A. Co. Dept. of Regional Planning. 57pp: Los Angeles County Environmental Resource Committee. 1,973. Interim Report on the Status of Natural Areas in Los Angeles Countv, and Recommendations for Their Conservation. Los Angeles County Dept. of Regional Planning. 5pp. Los Angeles County Environmental Resource Committee., 1973. Rare, Endan eg red, Depleted, and/or Protected Vertebrates Occurring in Los Angeles County.. Los • Angeles County Dept. of Regioynal Planning. 7pp. B-2 Los Angeles County Environmental Resource Committee. 1973. (Significant Ecological Areas -Final Report.) Los Angeles County Dept. of Regional Planning. Los Angeles County Nature Unit. 1974. Flora and Fauna of Devil's Punchbowl County Park, Los A aeles Co., _Calif. Whittier Narrows Nature Center. El Monte, .Ca. Los Angeles Department of City Planning. 1973. Open Space Plan. City of Los Angeles. L.A. Ca. Los Angeles Department of City Planning. 1973. Proposed Conservation Plan. City of Los Angeles. L.A. Ca. Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission-. 1973.. Los Angeles County General Plan Conservation Element Technical Report. L.A. Co. Regional Planning Commission. Marin County Planning Department. 1973. Countywide Plan--Marin County. Marin Co. Planning Dept. San Rafael, Ca. 144pp. Marin. County Planning Department. 1971. Can the Last Place Last?-- Preserving the Environmental Quality ofMarin. Marin County Planning Department, San Rafael, Ca. 144pp. National Forest Service; Land Use Planning Group. 1976.' Land Use. Planning- in the _ California Re ion. U.S. Forest Service. S'aii Francisco, Ca. National Forest Service, Land use Planning Group. 1976. Synopsis of Formal Classification Action_ s and Listing of Designated Areas. U.S; Forest Service. San Francisco, Ca. National Forest Service. 1973. New Wilderness Study Areas - Roadless Area Review and Evaluation. U.S. Forest Service, CI. Report No. '11. 21pp. National Park Service. 1975. Management Policies. National Park Service. 16pp, Nature Conservancy, The. 1975. The Preservation of Natural Diversity A Survey and Recommendations. The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco; Ca. 212pp. Office of Land Use and Water Planning and United States Geological Survey, Resource and Land Investigations Program. 1975. Critical Areas: A Guidebook .for Development of State Programs. U.S.D':I., Wash., D.C. Quinton-Redgate. 1975. North Los Angeles County General Plan. Los Angeles County Planning Commission, Santa Clara County. 1973. A Plan for the Conservation of,Resources : An Element of the General Plan of Santa Clara -County. Santa Clara County Planning Commission. 49pp. B-3 a • Santa Barbara County. 1974. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan: Conservation Element. Santa Barbara County Planning Department. Stanislaus Area Association of Governments. 1974. Wildlife and Vegetation: Environmental Resources Mana eg ment, Element. Stanislaus .Area Association of Governments, Modesto, Calif. Tans, W. 1974. Priority Ranking of Biotic Natural Areas. Michigan Botanist 13: 31-9. Thorne, R.F. 1972. Priorities - San Gabriel Mountains. Los Angeles County Dept.:of Regional Planning. United States Department of Agriculture. 1973. The National Forests, National Forest Wilderness and Primitive Areas. U.S. Forest.Service, San Francisco, Ca: FS-25. United States Department of Agriculture and United,States Department of the Interior. 1970. Guidelines for Evaluating Wild. Scenic, and Recreational River Areas Proposed for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Under Section 2. Public Law 90-542. U.S. Government.Printing Office. 12pp. B-4 APPENDIX C INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS THAT EITHER RECEIVED. A SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA. NOMINATING FORM OR WERE INTERVIEWED 1976 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA STUDY PREPARED BY ENGLAND & NELSON Legend x = Response received ERC = Los Angeles County Environmental Resources Committee Member RAC = U.C.L.A. Resources Advisory Committee Member Government Agencies x Association of Bay Area Governments x Chris Hartzel - Planner x Bureau of Land Management Bakersfield District x Terril King - Chief of Resource Management Desert Planning Staff x Robert Badaracco - Outdoor Recreation -Planner x Kristin Berry - Wildlife Biologist Hyrum Johnson - Plant Ecologist Riverside District x Allen Cooperrider - Wildlife Biologist x Mark Dimmitt - Animal Ecologist x John Hall - Botanist x Bureau of Outdoor Recreation x Ray Murry - Planner x California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission South Coast Regional Commission x Margot Feuer x Dave Smith x Gregg Van Orman x California -Department of Fish and Game Region 5 Office, Long Beach x Peter Gelfand - Wildlife Supervisor of L-A: County x Chuck Hooker - Marine Biologist x Earl Lauppe - Wildlife Biologist C - 1 0- a U • Rolf Mall - Environmental Sciences Manager for Marine Resources x Charles Marshall - Fisheries Biologist x Peter Phillips Marine Biologist x Gary Stacey - Wildlife Biologist x Jim St. Amant - Region 5 Fisheries Supervisor x California Department of Parks and Recreation x Alan Kolster - Associate Landscape Architect x La Verne, City of x Ruth Hogan - City Clerk x Los Angeles County Department of Beaches Joe Chesler - L.A. Co: Beach Advisory Council Member x Dick Fitzgerald - Director Paul Pettite Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation Seymour Greben - Director -x Whittier Narrows Nature Center x Dean Harvey - ERC Los Angeles Department of Environmental_Quality - Roger Fontes _ x Los Angeles County Museum of Natural. History x Charles Hogue - ERC x Lan Lester - ERC x Camm Swift - ERC x Marin County Planning Department x Kathleen Ohlson - Environmental Planner x National Forest Service Angeles National Forest x Margie Brayton - Wildlife Biologist California Region x Charles Joy - Land Classification Specialist x National Park Service x Nicholas Weeks - Landscape Architect x Santa Clara County Planning Department x Don Weden - Associate Planner C-2 x Santa Cruz Countyu Planning Department x Dennis Pisila - Planner x-Stanislaus Area Association of Governments x Greg. Steel - Area Coordinator x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Condor Recovery Team k Sanford Wilber Academic Institutions x Antelope Valley College x Gail Newkirk - Biologist x Biola College x Raphael Payne - Chairman, Biology Department Cabrillo Marine Museum Suzanne Miller - Marine Biologist California Institute of Technology Wheeler. North - Marine Biologist, Kelp Habitat Restoration Project RoberfSinsheimer - Chairman, Division of Biology, California, Lutheran College Curtis Nelson = Chairman, Biological Sciences Department x California State College, D6minguez1iills x Gregory Smith - Marine Biologist x California State Polytechnic University, Pomona Jonathan Baskin - Icthyologist Ken Brown - Vertebrate Ecologist Timothy Brown - Biologist Gilbert Brum - Botanist x Peter Castro - Marine Biologist Marion Harthill - Plant Ecologist Harold Lint - Field Ecologist x Edward Mercer - Freshwater Biologist - Ronald Quinn Zoologist x Glenn Stewart - Zoologist, ERC • Martin Stoner - Mycologist, Plant -Pathologist Laszlo Szijj - Ornithologist C-3 California State University, Fullerton Michael Horn - Marine Biologist Gene Jones - Botanist x California State University, Long Beach Philip Baker - Botanist x Charles Collins Ornithologist. Charles Galt - Marine Biologist. David Huckaby. - Mammalogist Richard Loomis - Herpetologist Greayer Mansfield --Jones - Plant Ecologist Alan Miller - Biologist Dennis Rainey = Biologist Donald Reish - Biologist Donald Shipley - Biologist Stuart Warter - Ornithologist William Wellhouse = Biologist California State University, Los Angeles Dudley Thomas - Chairman, Biology Department . Richard Vogl - Botanist California State.University, Northridge Andrew Starrett - ERC Chairman Cerritos College Louis Wilson - Chairman, Science, Engineering Mathematics Division Chaffey College . . . Richard Becks - Chairman, Division of Life Sciences x Chapman College x Cheng--Mei Fradkin. - Biologist Claremont Men's College Clyde Eriksen - Biologist Robert Feldmeth - Biologist College of the Canyons James Boykin - Biologist Donald Takeda - Biologist Compton Community College 0 Frisby Lockard C-4 0 Cypress College Bob Vandergrift East Los Angeles College George Wistreich. x El Camino College x Carl Meadows - Dean, Division of Natural Sciences R.C. Stephens - Zoologist Glendale Community College James Bouey Golden West College Norman Rich - Division of Mathematics and Sciences x La Verne College Harvey Good - Biologist x Sheridan Merritt - Zoologist Robert Neher - Chairman, Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics Long Beach City College Barbara Kalbus'- Chairman, Division of Mathematics and Sciences x Los Angeles City College Gerhard Bakker- Biologist x Barbara Joe Hoshizaki - Botanist Robert Lyon - Chairman, Department of Life Sciences x Los Angeles Harbor College x Arnold Small - Zoologist Herbert Thomas - Botanist x Los Angeles Pierce College x Barbara Hopper - Biologist Los Angeles Southwest College Biology Department Chairman x Los Angeles Valley College x David Dixon - Chairman, Department of Biological Sciences Mount San Antonio College J. Robert Thomas - Chairperson, Department of Biological Sciences x Occidental College Louis Baptista - Biologist C-5 William Hand = Biologist x John Stephens Jr. - Icthyologist Robert Stockhouse Il - Biologist Pasadena City College John Babel - Chairman, Department of Life Sciences, Pepperdine University Chairman, Department of.Natural Sciences and Mathematics x Pomona College Thomas Mulroy - Botanist x Larry, Oglesby - Zoologist Edwin Phillips.- Chairman, Botany Department William Wirtz - Zoologist Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gardent . Robert Thorne - Herbarium Curator x Rio Hondo College John Hole - Biologist Don Jenkins - Chairman, Biology'Department. x Ray Williams - Biologist San Bernardino County Museum Gene Cardiff - Curator x Santa Monica College x Jeremy Ward - Chairman, Department of Life Sciences x State Extension Services Maynard Cummings - Unit Coordinator, Wildlife and Marine Resources Extension,'and State- wide Coordinator Sea Grant Advisory Programs x Christopher Dewees - Marine Resources Specialist Robert Laacke - Extension Forester Lewis Nelson - Wildlife Specialist Jerome Siebert - Associate Director Cooperative Extension Dale Wade - Wildlife Specialist University of California, Berkeley Robert Stebbins - Herpetologist University of California, Irvine Gordon Marsh - Museum of Systematic -Biology C - 6 0 i • x University of California, Los Angeles x George Bartholomew - Zoologist, RAC x Glen Egstrom - Marine Biologist x Thomas Howell - Zoologist, RAC x Mildred Mathias - Botanist, RAC x'Norman Miller - Biologist x Henry Thompson - Botanist, RAC x David Verity - Museum Scientist x University of California, Riverside x Oscar Clarke - Herbarium Director x Wilber Mayhew - Zoologist, Rodolfo Ruibal - Herpetologist x Frank Vasek - Botanist x University_ of Redlands Lowell Smith - Chairman, Biology Department x Robert Wright - Biologist- x University of Southern California x Susan Anderson - Marine Recreation -Specialist Gilbert Jones - Zoologist Louis Wheeler - Botanist x Southern California Academy of Sciences x Dick Frizsen x Roberta Greenwood Conservation Groups American Cetacean Society Bill Samaras - President x Audobon Society Conejo Valley Chapter x Jessie Smith - President El Dorado Chapter Barbara Massey .Los Angeles Chapter x Barry Clark - Editor, "Western Tanager" Jerry Maisel - President Pasadena Chapter Arden Brame Jr. Michael Long - Conservation Chairman Pomona Valley Chapter C-7 0 6 • x Larry Oglesby - President San Fernando Valley Chapter Judy Howard Robert,Smith Santa Monica Chapter x Pamela Axelson - President Sea and Sage Chapter Margaret Carlberg Whittier Chapter x Norma Allen x J.H. Comby H.R. Gable x California Association of Resource Conservation Districts' Alex Adams - President x Lorin Trubschenck - First Vice President California Conservation Council J.B. Atkisson - Executive Secretary Edward Doldet - President William Wake - Vice President Californians for Environmental Quality Conservation Director x California Forest Protection Association x John Callaghan : Executive Vice President x Fred Landenberger - Assistant Manager, Land Use and Environment x California Native Plant Society Sier-ra--Santa Monica Chapter x Grace Heintz - President. Southern California Botanist Chapter x June Latting - Past President Jim Shevock Treasurer V. Walton. Wright - President x California Natural Areas Coordinating Council x Leslie Hood - Executive Director x California Tomorrow - Southern California Office x Richard Grant Jr. - Director California Trout Incorporated ' ' Richard May - President C - 8 x California Wildlife Federation x Sam Baker - President Center for Natural Areas Stephen Keiley - Chairman of the Board and President Council for Planning and Conservation Ellen Harris - President and Executive Secretary x Desert Bighorn Council x Bonnar Blong - Chairman x Desert Fishes Council x Edwin Pister, - Secretary --Treasurer x Desert Protective Council, Incorporated, The x Norwood Hazard - Vice President x Jane Pinheiro - High Desert Chairman Dean Slaughter - Secretary Glenn Vargas - President x Ecology Center of Southern California x Nancy Pearlman - Executive Director x Environmental- Policy Committee x Roberta Greenwood - Chairman - Friends of Charmlee Park John Hollinrake - President Friends of Griffith Park Conservation Chairman Friends of the Earth Conservation Chairman Friends of the Santa Monica Mountains and Seashore Conservation Chairman x Great Western Boy Scouts x Bob Hawkins - Director of Camps High Desert Environmental Defense Fund Charles Bell - President Izaak Walton League of America, Incorporated Art Harvey - President, California Division C-9 x Jenner Ecological Foundation x Mrs. William Jenner x Las Virgenes Resource Conservation District x Helen Funkhouser Los Allsos Beach Association Michael Palecki x Los Angeles County Beach Advisory Committee x Ken Kvammen x Dorothy Leconte x Ann Shaw ' Malibu Citizens for Good Community Planning Mrs. Elmer Callen Jr. National Waterfowl Council Pack Flyway John McKean - Chairman x Nature Conservancy, The State Office x Peter Seligman - Staff Biologist Southern California Chapter Frank Boren - Chairman x Fred, Botine National Wildlife Federation Western Region William Reavley - Executive Director North Valley Ecology Council Conservation Chairman Ocean Fish Protective Association, Incorporated Conservation Chairman Planning and Conservation League 'David Hirsch - President x Resource Conservation Districts -- Los Angeles x Joy Picus x Santa Susana Mountain Park Association x Jan Hinkston - President x Save Malibu Canyon Committee x Mrs. Warren Cappel C-10 0 Save Our Coastline Mirian Murphy,- Secretary Save the Oaks Conservation Chairman x Sierra Club Los Angeles Chapter x Doug & Naomi Farr - Co -Chairman; _Conservation Committee Conservation Chairman - High Desert Angeles Group Conservation Chairman - SanTernando Valley Group Southern California Regional Conservation Committee Ted Trzyna - Chairman Small Wilderness Area Preservation Emily Polk - President Paul Lippe - Ballona Creek Section Conservation Chairman - Glendale Section x Southern.California Camping Association x Grant Gerson Southern Council of Conservation Clubs M. Doornbos = President Tarzana Property Owners Association, Incorporated Recreation and Parks Chairman Theodore Payne Foundation for Wildflowers Conservation Chairman Topanga--Las Virgenes Resource Conservation District Robert Mann x Topanga State Park Citizen- Advisory Committee x Harvey Anderson Western Bird Banding Association Michael San Miguel - President Shirley Wells - First Vice President Wildlife Society Conservation Chairman, Southern California Chapter 0 Individuals x Pete Bloom - RaP for Bander C-11 0 .. i x David Brown x Rimmon Fay - Marine Biologist x Susan Nelson G.S. Suffel - Ornithologist x Tim Thomas C-12 0 APPENDIX D EVALUATION CRITERIA High Significance . The criteria and.rationale defining High Significance relate to resources that are generally limited in distribution and whose contribution to biological diversity,and/or.productivity, is critical within their regional context. In most cases, the term regional will refer to an area the size of a county, geographical subregion, national forest, or- larger. The criteria for High Significance are: o The habitat of State and Federally sanctioned Rare, Endangered and Threatened plant and animal species._ ; These areas are important to the preservation of plant and animal species that -are recognized as being either extremely low in numbers or having a very, limited amount of habitat available. The terms Rare, Endangered and Threatened have precise meanings defined in .both state and federal law. These areas would include the "critical" or "essentiaP_ habitat' -for such a species where this designation has been made, as well as areas which, have not been designated as such but are used by these species as an important part of their habitat. o Biotic communities, vegetative associations and habitats of plant and animal Mecies that are highly restricted in distribution on a regional basis. The purpose of this criterion is to identify resources -that .are unquestionably uncommon on a regional basis. This criterion is particularly applicable to those resources that may have been more common at one time, such as riparian habitats and coastal wetlands, but have been greatly reduced due to urban and agricultural expansion. Also included under this criterion is the habitat of non -government sanctioned rare and endangered species recognized by private conservation groups, such as the California Native Plant Society and Smithsonian Institute. In addition, resources that are limited in distribution, in the region being considered, but common elsewhere, fall into this group. o Habitat that at some point in the life cycle of a species or group of species, serves as a concentrated breeding, feeding, resting, or migrating grounds, and is limited in availability. D-1 a r� Certain areas tend to concentrate a species or group of species at various points in their life cycles. These areas possess specific characteristics that are essential to the maintenance of fish and wildlife. This criterion is intended to identify -such areas that are limited in distribution in the region and not the specialized habitat of a common species or group of species.- o Biotic resources that are of scientific interest because then are either an extreme in, pb1sicallgeogMphical limitations, or tha represent an unusual variation in a population or community. Scientists often, learn the most about a species or biological phenomenon by studying it at an extreme in its distribution. This reveals what the extremes are under which it can survive. In addition, isolated.populations and communities are often relics of what was present in an area of some previous time, and often show genetic traits .not found elsewhere in the species. These characteristics may be useful in determining taxonomic relationships. o Areas that serve as core habitats to regional plant, wildlife, and game -populations and fisheries. Certain characteristics of habitats, their geographical location; and their topographical configuration make them particularly important to plant and wildlife resources within - an entire region. An example' would be a watershed containing an "ecotone", or high diversity of habitats with an extraordinarily high species holding capacity which serves to replenish and maintain healthy plant and wildlife populations throughout the surrounding area. Areas that are critical to the maintenance of game and fish populations in the same. manner also fall under this criterion. Moderate Significance The criteria defining Moderate Significance relate to resources whose contribution to native biological diversity and productivity is limited to their local context .and/or which support the functioning and .integrity of adjacent areas of high significance. The criteria and the rationale for determining Moderate Significance are: o Habitats that are key to the maintenance of localized plant and animal populations but are not significant on a regional basis. These would include relatively small undisturbed habitats, such as in canyons or on steep hillsides, which are isolated by surrounding urban and agricultural land D-2 uses and do not function as an interacting part of regional wildlife and vegetation systems. o Areas. which act to buffer and protect resources of high significance. Commonly, areas of high significance will be� defined by ridgelines, the physical extent of habitats, and the edges of urban and agricultural development. In most cases, the areas immediately adjacent to these borders, while not displaying high' significance in themselves, interrelate enough that their ultimate disposition will have- an influence on adjacent resources. Thus, it may be necessary to provide setbacks from intense development to prevent adverse impacts from "spilling over" into areas of high. significance. o Corridors and zones which serve to link areas of high significance and facilitate their ecological interaction. While not ,possessing high significance in themselves, such corridors and zones would support and protect the functioning of .areas of high significance in- the context of regional- ecosystems. In this regard they are like buffer areas. They are usually -larger, however, not only protecting areas of high significance from impact but also :facilitating population exchange between them. Such areas are intended to prevent . areas of high significance from. becoming geographically isolated- by. development whereby a gradual decline in their integrity and value would be expected. o" Biological resources which are noteworthy for their educational andlor- horticultural value. This criterion applies to resources which do not contribute to regionally 'significant ecological functions, but do contribute to the overall biological diversity of a - particular locale. An example of this type of resource would be introduced or native trees with exceptional specimen quality. Low Significance Remaining biological resources fall within areas of Low Significance. The single criterion for determining these areas is: o Areas where biological resources ,have been removed or significantly altered and is none.of the above criteria apply. D-3 i is In general, these. areas are highly disturbed and/or lack importance in the continuance and preservation of local or regional native biological diversity and productivity. Urban and agricultural land uses -are usually associated with areas of low significance.. D-4 a APPENDIX E DESCRIPTION -OF BIOTIC COMMUNITIES FOUND WITHIN THE IRVINE STUDY AREA Freshwater Marsh. This community is composed of emerged aquatic plants and is found in permanently saturated soils where the water, table is at or above the ground surface. In the study area it exists along several stream courses, along the shorelines of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs, and most extensively -at the San Joaquin Marsh .(area #6). Normally, it is dominated by tall reed -like species, including cattail (T)tha latifolia) and Olney bulrush (Scirpus olneyi). Willows are also common. In. general, this habitat remains in good condition over most of the study area. However, the distribution of the community is limited, In most areas it exists as a very thin band along stream courses. As a result, it is highly susceptible to disturbances. Uncontrolled access and invasion by non -natives has seriously degraded this community in some areas. The freshwater marsh community serves as- the entire habitat or the critical component of the habitat for a. great variety of faunal species. Amphibian species include several frogs, salamanders, and newts. Most of these spend their entire' life cycle in freshwater aquatic and semi -aquatic habitats, and could not otherwise survive. Only -two reptiles, the western pond turtle and the western aquatic -garter snake are expected in this habitat with any regularity. This community is equally critical for them. Rodent populations can be found on the outside edge of the .habitat,, and medium to large sized mammals use the marsh for cover while watering; feeding and resting: These include the coyote, gray fox, mule deer, Virginia opossum, long:tailed weasel; and raccoon. Several bird species found here are also specialized for this type of habitat and can be found nowhere else. They include the Virginia rail,, sora rail,. American bittern, common yellowthroat, _and long -billed marsh wren. There is an additional avifaunal component that requires the cover of the marsh and the open water of the intermittent ponds. These include American coot, common gallinule, green heron, great blue heron, grebes, and several species of ducks. Species within this 'community with special status, and the areas within the planning area in which they are found, are listed in Table B. Commonly found in association with marsh areas .are bodies of open water. These occur at the Sand Canyon, Laguna,. Bonita, Rattlesnake, Lambert, and Siphon Reservoirs, as well as the Woodbridge Village and William Mason Park Lakes. This habitat is E-1 important to migrating ducks, geese, loons, and grebes. Most bodies of freshwater are. used by these species as wintering and resting areas during their migrations. Most reservoirs and drainages are used for irrigation or flood control, and the periodic rapid fluctuations of water levels prevents the formation of well -developed mature lakeside marsh that can be used by waterfowl for forage and cover. Therefore, few reservoirs offer more than marginal wildlife habitat. Those that 'do contain water year- round have developed aquatic corrimunities. Coastal Sage Scrub. Coastal sage scrub is the characteristic plant community of the lower elevation hillsides and ridges of coastal Southern California where it occupies dry, rocky, or gravelly soils. Within the study area this community is ' found scattered . throughout the San Joaquin Hills and at elevations .generally below 1500 feet on the Lomas Ridge. Typically, it is present on steep hillsides and in narrow canyons which are unusable. for grazing and agriculture. Coastal sage scrub is an open shrub community. The dominant species are shrubs that grow two to five feet high, but do not normally form a closed canopy. However, bare ground is not common. Rainfall. and soil moisture are sufficient to support a rich variety of forbs and grasses. Growth of the dominant vegetation occurs in late winter and spring, following the onset of winter rains. Most flowering will occur in spring, but some shrub species continue into summer. The vegetation becomes .dormant and -more or less deciduous in summer and fall. Natural seeding rapidly reestablishes this community-, after fire, which normally consumes this vegetation type entirely. Ground cover is usually reestablished within one year after a burn. The .composition of this community varies considerably within .the study ,area and two sub -communities, "sage" and "mixed", can -be identified. This is"the result of the diversity in climate, soils, and topography found among the .coastal and inland mountain environments. The sage sub -community is relatively homogeneous in its species dominance. Generally, this vegetation is, dominated. by California sagebrush ,(Artemisia californica) and a variety -of grasses. In .fact, it often occurs in association with introduced grassland. Floral species commonly comprising mixed coastal sage scrub communities include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coastal goldenbush (Happlopappus venetus), California encelia (Encelia californica), deer weed (Lotus scoparius), black sage (Salvia mellifera), and California buckwheat (Erigonum fasciculatum). Within both the sage and mixed subcornmunities, larger shrubs such as lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), laurel sumac (Rhus laurina), and toyon (Heteromeles • arbutifolia).are also common on north -facing slopes and in drainages where coastal sage scrub resembles chaparral in growth pattern and appearance. Common groundcover E-2 species are annual grasses and forbs introduced by man through, grazing and agriculture. These include red -stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutar-ium), foxtail chess (Bromus rubens), soft chess (Bromus mollis), and wild oat (Avena fatua). Remnant perennial grasses (Stipa spp., Elymus condensatus) may also be found. Coastal sage scrub is highly _productive and supports a surprising diversity and abundance of . wildlife. Amphibians are generally absent; however, several reptiles, including western lizard, side -blotched lizard, gopher snake, red diamond rattlesnake; common kingsnake,, and red racer are commonly found. Rodents and small mammals are very abundant and include dusky -footed woodrat, deer mouse, western harvest mouse, pacific kangaroo rat, California pocket -mouse, and Beechey ground squirrel. Audubon cottontail and brush, rabbit are also numerous. The large number of smaller mammals supports a relatively large number of predators. These include those snakes mentioned above, and in addition, -fox, coyote, bobcat, and raptorial birds (hawks, eagles, owls). Larger maminals, represented by niule deer and mountain lion (in the Lomas. Ridge area) also commonly utilize this habitat within their ranges. Characteristic bird species include the brown towhee; ,several sparrow species,. California .thrasher, blue -gray gnatcatc her, and roadrunner. Other small "migratory -birds become common in the winter and wide-ranging predatory birds are frequently seen overhead. These raptors roost in nearby oak and riparian woodland, and on cliffs and rocks. Chaparral. Chaparral is widely _distributed throughout California on dry slopes: and - ridges at low and medium elevations where it occupies thin, rocky, or heavy soils. A well -developed chaparral cover is found in the extreme northeast corner of the study area and both "mined" and "chamise" chaparral types are found within the study area. Vegetative composition varies considerably; however-, most species posses small -,-broad, hard leaves. These characteristics allow plants to photosynthesize and transpire under semi -arid conditions without wilting by reducing their evapo-transpiratory water losses. Most plants, are evergreen, growing and flowering primarily im late winter and spring and becoming somewhat dormant over the summer and fall. Chaparral species commonly grow six to ten feet high and often form dense nearly impenetrable -stands. Chamise chaparral communities are dominated by _chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) which grows in relatively non-specific, uniform stands. Within mixed chaparral, this species is joined in dominance by other species which include California sagebrush, lemonadeberry, laurel sumac, black sage, scrub : oak (Quercus dumosa), and toyon. Typically, a large accumulation of litter is found surrounding the base of shrubs ,and is important to the overall ecology of the chaparral community. It- functions as a • . "groundcover" in place of grasses and forbs to retard rainfall runoff, thereby inhibiting erosion and enhancing percolation of water into the soil. E-3 Additionally, the leaf litter is highly flammable and readily burns during the drier parts of the year: Periodic burning (every twenty years or so) is a key element to the maintenance of a healthy, productive chaparral cover. The plants of this community are adapted to recurrent fires and either produce seeds that-require� high temperatures before germinating (scarification) or possess root crowns that send up sprouts following fire. Furthermore, fires recycle nutrients held.in the plants back to the soil in the form of ash.- If fire does not occur, the soil becomes sterile and -plants eventually become decadent and die without replacement: This can lead to problems in. wildlife. and watershed management. Following a fire, annuals produce a dense- groundcover that holds the soil in, place until the- larger shrubs and the litter are reestablished. The diversity of wildlife in pure. unbroken stands of chaparral :is limited. However, community productivity is high and large numbers of individual species are often present. Under natural conditions of recurring fire, the chaparral is regularly burned, thus creating openings that often support many grasses and coastal- sage scrub -species. This process is extremely important to wildlife: These openings provide an edge between the successional vegetation and chaparral that is much more diverse and able to support a greater number of species than either habitat type alone. These animals are -able to utilize this interface as an entrance to dense chaparral in areas that would otherwise be- closed- to them. The characteristic wildlife species found in this plant community are virtually the same as those found in coastal -sage scrub. - Introduced Grassland. Introduced grassland, also referred -to as valley grassland, is. a vegetation type that replaces native communities- following dryland farming, heavy, grazing, and other artificial clearing. Natural plant species are - either cleared or are destroyed and are replaced by adventitious species that can withstand constant disturbance. As a result, the flora of this .community is dominated by annuals and perennial herbs that grow one to three feet high. The majority of these are non-native and-, are often considered to be "weeds".. The vegetative cover of this 'community characteristically germinates during the late fall rainfall, with most growth, and flowering occurring from winter through spring. Plants then die and persist as seeds through summer and early fall. These characteristics are in contrast to - native grasslands of Southern California which are composed of perennial bunchgrasses (Stipa spp., Poa spp., Aristida spp.). Relatively large introduced grasslands are found primarily in the broader valleys and on the more gentle hillsides of the Lomas Ridge and on ridgelines of the San Joaquin Hills. Presumably, these areas were once covered by a -native coastal sage scrub or native grassland community. However, as ranching, and agricultural practices grew in the region, these areas were either mechanically cleared or treated with herbicides and were either converted to grassland to improve livestock grazing or plowed for farming. E-4 Dominant species include various introduced grasses (e.g., .Brome* spp., Avena spp., Festuca spp., Hordeum spp., etc.) and mustards (Brassica spp.). Numerous spring - flowering native wildflowers are also present in limited numbers. These are rapid-, . growers, shooting up out of the soil in a matter of a week:or two under the proper climatic conditions and adequate rainfall.. When the weather becomes hot and, dry, they disappear with the same rapidity. Introduced grassland is easily reestablished after fire; and . on -going grazing and agricultural practices will continue to promote this vegetation. However, if left undisturbed, these areas will eventually revert back to their native conditions, of native grasslands or coastal sage scrub. Large open expanses of grassland support a limited diversity of wildlife, but those that are present.are normally abundant. No amphibian species are expected, in this dry, disturbed habitat. The side -blotched -lizard, western fence lizard, red diamond rattlesnake, and gopher snake are the characteristic reptiles of this community. The latter two species -as well as larger mammalian predators, .such as coyote, fox and bobcat, are supported by abundant populations of rodents and. small mammals, including meadow mouse, deer mouse, Botta pocket gopher, Beechey ground squirrel, and Audubon cottontail. 'Two groups of birds dominate the avian fauna in this community.. Grassland birds such: as the western meadowlark, water pipit; savannah sparrow, lark sparrow, and horned lark forage for seeds and insects on the ground. Several of these species . Will nest here l'f not' disturbed. The second group of birds are the. predators. These species .are expected` to include the red-tailed hawk, marsh hawk, black -shouldered kite, turkey vulture,, American kestrel, barn owl, and great horned owl. For, these organisms, grasslands serve as important feeding grounds where "they prey on small .mammals, lizards, and small birds. However, they depend on woodland habitats in. the region :for nesting and ,perching .sites., Riparian. Riparian communities are found along drainage courses throughout California where moisture is at or near the surface- on a year-round basis. These conditions_ are favorable for the establishment of a rich cover of trees;, shrubs, herbs, and grasses. This community type is found along numerous drainage courses. in -the .study area.. It was once much more extensive in the region; .however, flood control and irrigation .projects have severely restricted its distribution. Due to the wide variation in the intensity and extent of man's activities adjacent to and within these areas, species composition and growth .form vary considerably. Community associations within the study area consist of two types, "Woodland" and "forest". Riparian forest refers to riparian community associations which have a dense vegetative • cover. These areas are dominated by western sycamore and coast live oak-(Quercus agrifolia). A dense understory of large shrubs, including toyon, elderberry (Sambucus E-5 mexicana), laurel sumac, and lemonadeberry, is. commonly present: The groundcover is usually a thick layer of leaf litter. Aquatic and , semi -aquatic plants,, such as algae and water -cress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum) are found where surface water is present on a year round basis. Poorly developed examples of- this association are scattered throughout the study area where it occurs as a narrow band or as scattered clumps along drainage courses. Only where it occurs. interspersed 'or intermixed with oak woodland (see below) is it well developed. These areas include Shady, and Bommer Canyons in the San -Joaquin Hills and in Bee and Round Canyons in the Lomas Ridge. Riparian woodland occur in localities with permanently wet soil; thus, they are usually found near seeps'or.at the margins of perennial streams and marshes where drainage is too poor for the development 'of a riparian forest. Characteristically,, this association is dominated by dense stands of willows (Salix spp.) nine'to fifteen feet tall. These plants reproduce readily from- seeds, broken branches and underground shoots. Understory. vegetation is normally lacking. Willow thickets are found along irrigation ditches and streamcourses throughout the study area. The most significant of these are found at Bonita Reservoir, Sand Canyon Wash and along portions of the San Diego Creek, particularly where it mixes with the SanJoaquin Marsh. Much smaller examples are found scattered throughout the study area surrounding reservoirs,, and in the larger drainage ditches. Due to the similarity of wildlife habitat provided by riparian communities :and oak woodland, this aspect of this community is discussed in the next section. Oak Woodland. Major oak woodlands are found in Bee and Round Canyons in the Lomas Ridge and in Shady and Bommer Canyons within the San Joaquin -Hills. ' Minor woodlands can be found in numerous other canyons within the study area, however, most of these were not mapped due to their small size. These communities, consisting of either open "savannah" or more dense forest, are solely dominated by coast live oaks ten to_ twenty feet tall with an understory of grasses and scattered shrubs. The only significant difference -between these sub -types is the density of oak trees. Large shrubs characteristic of the chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities, such as toyon, laurel sumac, lemonadeberry, Mexican elderberry and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica) commonly occupy the openings between the oak trees. The majority of the oak woodland communities within the study area are in good -to excellent condition despite the fact that the native understory vegetation of most has been heavily disturbed by recreational use and/or heavy grazing pressure. Fire results in the clearing of litter and dead vegetation, and loss of approximately 50% of living material on oaks. Rejuvenation of the woody vegetation will occur after a fire. E-6' Annual grasses and chaparral type shrubs in the understory will reseed and resprout after a burn. Oak and riparian woodlands are very uncommon in Southern California., In 1963, these habitats were estimated by the California Department of Fish and Game to cover less than 1.7%-of Orange County (Table A). This figure has undoubtedly been reduced since then by urban and agricultural expansion, particularly residential development and flood control improvements. This is contributing to the loss of regional wildlife •, resources because woodland habitats* are of high ecological value. For a given. number of acres of habitat, they support, higher population densities of wildlife than any other terrestrial habitat. Oak and riparian woodland habitats normally possess a high. diversity of plant types enhanced by their overlap with surrounding vegetation types (edge effect or, ecotone), .which in turn support abundant and diverse wildlife resources-. All woodlands should be viewed as components of a. regional system of woodland "island" habitats. The number Of wildlife species each woodland island can hold is- a function of its size and its isolation. 'Larger woodlands, and woodlands located close to other woodlands' (such as in the same canyon or in adjacent canyons), can hold more species than smaller or isolated ones. If an individual woodland or a large portion of a woodland ' is removed, the diversity and abundance of wildlife there; as well as in surrounding woodlands, will decrease: These - habitats normally support relatively high, numbers of amphibians .beneath leaf litter and along moist stream banks. Several reptile species are also common here. Rodents .are common along the _edge of .neighboring habitats and in areas where seasonal flooding does not occur. Particularly in lowland areas; woodlands are very important to furbearers (rabbits, raccoons, skunks, foxes, coyotes, weasels, bobcats) which use these habitats .for cover., food, and denning.. Populations of furbearers commonly reach their greatest densities in and around these areas. Woodlands are very important to bird: species. Nearly all *the species, found in, surrounding habitats can be found here. In addition, it supports. others, that require the moist vegetation and/or trees. Hummingbirds, woodpeckers,, many flycatchers, thrushes, - vireos, warblers, and most finches forage and nest in this habitat. Many of these. species are migratory, and utilize this habitat for over -wintering. Hawks, owls; falcons, kites; and doves specifically require the trees as perching .and, nesting sites , and forage in surrounding vegetation. Some predatory species such as Cooper's. hawk and , sharp - skinned hawk forage in the habitat itself. These habitats also serve as wildlife dispersion corridors important ' to regional wildlife populations. Many wildlife species, particularly medium and large forms, must move from place to place to forage for food or meet other requirements necessary for their E-7 survival. In addition, the dispersion of young after reproduction- is essential -to prevent local population crowding and to maintain genetic variability and numbers throughout regional populations. Wildlife dispersion usually takes place along, canyon drainages and streamcourses, not only because topographic resistance is -minimized, but also because they commonly support woodland habitats which provide cover, food, and/or water during movement. Agriculture Generally, this community is comprised'of orchards, cultivated croplands and scattered residential and farm structures, and is found mostly on valley floors where land is suitable for agriculture and where irrigation is available. This community is found over much -of the Tustin Plain and the broader foothill canyons- where agricultural land uses have a fairly long history. The prevailing orchards and row -crops found here are 'far :removed from natural : conditions and represent environmental simplifications which are artificially managed. Eucalyptus windrows composed of single'rows of blue gum (Eucalyptus globules) fifty to seventy-five feet high, are commonly aligned between fields and orchards.. These were originally intended to reduce crop damage and excessive evaporative water loss due to wind. These windrows visually dominate the existing landscape and are currently being retained in . urbanized areas as a visual amenity (Appendix G - III). A wide variety of roadside and irrigation ditch weeds complete the vegetation of this community. The native flora in rural communities has been heavily impacted, and' natural habitat diversity and productivity has been greatly reduced. Consequently, the diversity and abundance of fauna is very limited. Croplands and orchards are capable of supporting a relatively small number -of -wildlife species. These include several perching birds (starling, mourning dove, western meadowlark, horned lark, several sparrow species) and birds of prey (red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, black -shouldered kite), few reptiles (gopher snake, side -blotched lizard), a number of small rodents and medium sized mammals (meadow mouse, house mouse, beechey ground squirrel, Audubon cottontail), and an occasional larger mammalian predator (coyote). The type and number of wildlife vary with the crop present and the season. Adjacent eucalyptus windrows are frequently used by birds of prey for roosting and"occasionally for nesting. The use of the numerous flood control channels and irrigation ditches by wildlife depends largely on their location, design, substrate, presence or absence of surface water, and the degree and frequency of weed control and silt removal. Most are dry for the greater part of the year and/or are frequently managed. Thus, permanentresident wildlife populations are limited. Others support a surprising number of species including, `those species found in adjacent croplands, plus, several shorebirds, waterfowl, and amphibians which depend • on surface water and/or moist soil and vegetation. Perhaps most notable in this regard is E-8 il • the San Diego Creek Channel which in the past possessed considerable lateral vegetation along its margins. Urban/Cultural. Urban communities are located within cities and towns with residential subdivisions, parks, golf courses, commercial areas, and industry. Within the study area-, this community is represented over much of the Tustin Plain which is rapidly urbanizing. Notable urban features of the area include MCAS El Toro, MCAS- - Tustin and .the scattered residential developments of .the Irvine Villages. Gener-ally, all native vegetation in these areas has been removed and replaced with non=native ornamental species which are frequently manicured. Faunal diversity is extremely low. However, several ,animal species thrive under these conditions. They include Anna's hummingbird, starling, mockingbird, house, sparrow, house finch, -Brewer's blackbird, common crow, house mouse, and Botta's-pocket gopher. The house sparrow, the starling and the house mouse are introduced European species and are considered to -be "zoological weeds' that compete with -native species. E-9 APPENDIX F AREAS OF HIGH AND MODERATE SIGNIFICANCE Area of High Significance #1 . Limestone Canyon Classification: -Prime bird of prey nesting/roosting area. Prime .bird of prey foraging/wintering area. Major wildlife movement corridor. Regionally significant oak woodland.. Woodland/brushland/grassland ecotone. Description: This area, defined by the entire watershed of Limestone Canyon overlaps the extreme northern boundary of the study area. -With the exception of several unimproved 'dirt roads. and limited agricultural activities, the area has retained most of its natural character. A mosaic of native and naturalized habitats are present, including extensive oak woodland onthe floor of the canyon and its major tributaries; coastal sage scrub on steeper hillsides.and in narrower drainages; and, introduced grassland throughout the- broader canyons and on -the more gentle rolling"hillsides. Elements of riparian habitat are also found- along the mainstern drainage. These habitats create an -"edge effect" which support diverse and abundant populations of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. In particular, the combination of larger trees and adjacent open areas creates an important habitat area for resident and migratory birds- of prey. In addition, the canyon provides, an important link between Santiago. Canyon downstream and the interior habitat areas of Lomas Ridge upstream. As a wildlife movement corridor, this area.is used by a number of larger mammals and medium sized furbearers, including mountain lion, coyote, bobcat, striped skunk and mule deer. The combination of open foraging habitat in proximity to woodland nesting and roosting sites: also makes this area very important to birds of prey. Several raptor species are. found here including black -shouldered kite, cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned. hawk, marsh hawk, red -shouldered hawk, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, merlin, American. kestrel and barn owl, all of which are afforded special status designations. Other species of special status which occur within this area are ring-tailed cat, black -tailed gnatcatcher, cactus wren, hairy woodpecker, Bewick's wren, western bluebird, loggerhead shrike, vesper sparrow and coast horned lizard. • Overall, this area ranks as one of the more significant 'habitat areas remaining in Orange- County. F-1 II • Management Considerations: The goal for managing this area should be to -prevent any .,loss, of the existing resource value within the "core" oak woodland area and minimizing/limiting the loss .of ' resource values, throughout the remaining area. The most effective action to achieve this goal is to preserve the oak woodland areas in their entirety and to retain large interconnected blocks of contiguous coastal : sage scrub and grassland habitats adjacent to' the woodland. (Note: The vast majority of- this area is outside the City's sphere of influence). F-2 1� • Area of High Significance 42 Bee & Round Canyons Classification: Regionally significant oak woodland. Woodland/brushland/grassland ecotone. Description: This area encompasses the entire upper watersheds .of Bee and Round Canyons. Except for several unimproved dirt roads and. limited grazing in both canyons, this area is natural, and has retained most of its native character. The area supports a mosaic of habitat and vegetation types, including extensive oak woodland, well developed riparian, coastal sage scrub and introduced grassland. The oak woodland and riparian vegetation are found in the mainstein canyon bottoms with the hillsides. of these drainages supporting coastal sage scrub. Limited .areas; of 'introduced grassland are found on the more level ridgelines- and more gentle hillsides of the uppermost watershed, particularly Bee Canyon. The variety and mix of vegetation types create a diverse habitat for wildlife.. Populations of mammals, - birds, reptiles and amphibians are.diverse and abundant :This area represents one of the more important habitats found on the south side of Lomas Ridge. Several "wildlife species of special concern. are found here including ring-tailed cat, black -shouldered kite, Cooper's hawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, merlin, American kestrel, barn owl, black -tailed- gnatcatcher, cactus wren, hairy woodpecker, Bewick's wren, western bluebird, loggerhead shrike, Vesper sparrow and coast horned lizard. Management Considerations: The goal for managing this area should be to prevent any loss of the existing resource value within the "core" oak woodland and riparian habitat. In addition, the loss of resource values through other areas should be minimized and limited by preserving large,. interconnected blocks of contiguous coastal sage scrub and grassland habitats, particularly adjacent to the woodland. (Note: a major portion of this area is planned .as a sanitary landfill by the County of Orange): F-3 0 i • Area of High Significance #3 The Sinks Classification: Regionally significant oak savannah. Woodland/brushland/grassland ecotone. Description: This area encompasses a portion of the upper Agua Chinon Watershed. -Except for several unimproved dirt roads and limited grazing in the area, this area is natural, and has retained most of its native character. The - area supports a mosaic of habitat and vegetation types, including extensive, well developed oak savannah, riparian, coastal sage scrub and introduced grassland. The oak savannah and riparian vegetation - are found- throughout . the various drainages in the area with the hillsides of these drainages supporting coastal sage scrub. Limited areas ,of introduced grassland are found on the more level ridgelines and more gentle hillsides. This area represents one- of -the more important. habitats found on the south.side of Lomas Ridge. This area also supports .a number of plant species, in abundance, which are normally found- in the .desert regions and ,more interior regions of Southern California. Thus, ,certain floral components may represent the western most extremes in .their distribution and are of potential scientific interest.. Additionally, -several wildlife species of "special concern are found here including ring-tailed cat; black -shouldered kite, Cooper's hawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, merlin, .American kestrel,,barn owl, black -tailed gnatcatcher, cactus wren, hairy woodpecker, Bewick's wren, western bluebird, loggerhead shrike, Vesper sparrow and coast horned- lizard. - Also, due to the presence -of " cliff roosting sites, American peregrine falcon -may also visit this area during periods of migration. Management Considerations: The goal for managing this area should be to prevent any loss of the existing resource value within the "core" oak savannah and riparian habitat. In addition, the loss of resource values through other areas should be minimized and limited by preserving large, interconnected - blocks of 'contiguous coastal sage scrub and grassland habitats, particularly adjacent to the woodland. F-4 • Area of High _Significance #4 Borrego Canyon Classification: Regionally significant oak woodland. Woodland/briishland/grassland ecotone. Major wildlife movement corridor. Description: This area encompasses the entire upper watershed of Borrego Canyon. Except for several unimproved, dirt roads and limited grazing, this area is natural, and has retained most -of its native character. This area overlaps the. extreme northeast edge of the study area. The area supports ..a mosaic of habitat and vegetation types, including extensive oak woodland, well developed riparian-, coastal sage scrub -and introduced grassland: The oak woodland and riparian vegetation are found in the mainstem canyon bottom with the hillsides of this drainage supporting coastal sage scrub. Limited areas of introduced grassland are found on the more level . ridgelines and more gentle hillsides. The variety and mix- of vegetation types create a diverse habitat for wildlife. Populations of -mammals, birds,, reptiles and amphibians are diverse and abundant Larger and medium sized mammals and ,birds are believed to _use this canyon as a major wildlife movement ,corridor :due .to, the presence of breeding;, feeding, nesting and coven habitat. This area represents one of the more important habitats found on the south side of Lomas Ridge. Several wildlife species of special concern are found here including ring-tailed cat, black -shouldered kite, Cooper's hawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, merlin, American kestrel, barn owl; black -tailed � gnatcatcher, cactus wren, hairy woodpecker, Bewick's wren, western bluebird, loggerhead shrike, Vesper sparrow and. coast homed lizard. Management Considerations; The goal for managing this area should be to prevent any loss of the existing resource value within the. "core" oak woodland and, riparian habitat. In addition, the loss of resource values through other areas should be minimized and limited,by preserving.. large, interconnected blocks of contiguous coastal sage scrub and grassland habitats, particularly adjacent to the woodland. F-5 i • Area of High Significance #5 Santiago Canyon Classification: Regionally significant riparian habitat. Prime bird of prey nesting/roosting area. Major wildlife movement corridor. " Regionally significant oak woodland. Woodland/brushland/grassland ecotone. Description: Santiago Canyon is a major topographical and ecological feature of the Santa Ana Mountains. - This area, overlapping the extreme northern boundary of the study area, encompasses a large portion of the canyon where sand and gravel operations and rural development has not occurred... Although Santiago Canyon Road, agricultural activities, grazing and limited rural development has taken place in this area, the canyon remains natural overall and supports significant native vegetation. The habitats present continue to support extensive and well developed riparian, scattered oak woodland, coastal sage scrub, chaparral and introduced grassland communities. Dense, wooded areas remain throughout the broad canyon floor and on many north -facing slopes. Dense chaparral and. coastal sage- scrub are found on most hillsides and ridgelines. Introduced grassland is present over the canyon bottom and in many broader, more level areas where tributary drainages . intersect with the mainstem canyon. , Wildlife is both abundant and diverse in the area which provides a wide variety of breeding, foraging and cover habitats. A. year round source of surface water is also present in most years, adding to the importance of this area. Mammals,, birds, reptiles and amphibians are all represented in high -numbers. Larger more mobile species of birds and mammals use the canyon as a major movement corridor, utilizing the variety of habitats as they move. Such species. include mountain lion, bobcat, mule deer, -coyote and a variety of furbearers (skunks, ring-tailed cat, raccoons, etc.) Sensitive species which are found in this area include several species of birds of prey.. These are black -;shouldered kite, Cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, marsh hawk, red -shouldered hawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, merlin, Americankestrel, barn owl, and -possibly American peregrine falcon. Additional species of special status found in the chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and open areas are black -tailed, 'gnatcatcher, Bewick's wren, hairy woodpecker, cactus wren, western bluebird, loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler, grasshopper, sparrow, Vesper sparrow, and coast horned lizard. Historically, the area- is believed to have been extremely important to nesting birds of prey due to the availability of tree and cliff nest sites. This feature -has diminished somewhat due to F-6 6 • the, encroachment of man. However, it remains to a significant degree. Within a regional context, 'the broader alluvial woodlands and more dense. oak and riparian.forests are found in only a few drainages within Orange County. Management Considerations: Resource "management -for this area should have as its goal the prevention of any :loss to. existing woodland values, preferably,_ through riparian and oak woodland preservation. Additionally, large blocks of contiguous chaparral, coastal _sage scrub and introduced grassland should be .preserved so as to minimize and limit the- loss of these habitat values, (Note: The majority of this area is outside the City's sphere of influence). F-i Area of High Significance'#6 San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Classification:.. Rare/endangered/unique species. Regiorially significant riparian habitat. Open water/shoreline with regional significance as waterfowl habitat. Regionally significant freshwater marsh. _ Description: This area is a .remnant of the extensive wetlands that once covered the entire upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek delta area. . Today, former areas of this. habitat have been filled, drained, and lost to development. Excellent examples of lowland riparian and regionally limited freshwater marsh habitats are present; most of which have been set aside as part of the University of California reserve system. Freshwater marsh habitat supports a great diversity of wildlife. Most of the many bird species found here are dependent in some way on the surface moisture and vegetation.. It is also habitat that supports several species of amphibians -(including California red - legged frog), reptiles and mammals. The San Joaquin freshwater marsh is, -most important to resident and migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, which- either breed here or are found in very high numbers during the spring and fall migration periods.' Such species include western grebe, double- crested cormorant, canvasback, . black -crowned night heron, American bittern, least bittern, white-faced ibis, California black rail, mountain plover, snowy plover; long -billed curlew, short - billed dowitcher, and elegant tern all of which have special- status.. Still other non -water bird species found here are black -shouldered kite, marsh hawk, ferruginous, hawk, American osprey, American kestrel, burrowing owl, barn owl, and yellow -breasted chat. Five rare/endangered species are also -found here on. a regular basis. These are Belding savannah sparrow, light-footed clapper rail, California least tern, , California brown pelican, and possibly Bell's least vireo. -These species are more common within the Upper Newport Bay saltmarshs, but occasionally use -the freshwater marsh for habitat as well. This area is the only large area of this habitat remaining in the county. Management Considerations: There should be no loss of existing resource values from within this area. Preferably, this goal should be -achieved through total preservation; however, should some, limited loss be unavoidable, restoration is acceptable if restored habitat is equal in. value 'to • that lost. - F-8 • Area of High Significance #7 Sand Canyon Wash Classification: Regionally significant riparian habitat: Regionally significant freshwater marsh. Description: This area includes the. reach of Sand Canyon Wash between Sand Canyon Reservoir and the Culver Drive crossing; The upstream portion of this area consists of dense riparian thickets which have reestablished themselves along the improved channel. The lower portion of this area is considerably wider, and consists of -both riparian and freshwater marsh habitats within the -undeveloped portion of William R. Mason Regional Park. Flood control improvements in the- lower portion appear to have been minimal. Although this area has experienced some alteration, the vegetation is primarily native and characteristic of natural, lowland riparian habitats, and, is significant within: a regional context. Some of .the species which use this area are sensitive based on various status designations. These include black-, shouldered kite, marsh hawk, American kestrel, black -crowned night heron; American bittern, least bittern, loggerhead shrike, and yellow warbler. Due to, the extensive and well developed native vegetation, this area serves as an important habitat. for .a. wide variety of birds, small and medium sized mammals, reptiles and amphibians.. Today, it is one of. the few, relatively large areas of riparian and freshwater marsh , areas remaining in the study area. It is also noteworthy on a county-wide.basis. Both resident -breeding and seasonal -migratory birds benefit. from this area. Being one of � the few habitats of its type remaining in the region, it serves as a refuge for those species. requiring riparian vegetation within their habitat areas. Overall, the area has high integrity as a predominantly native habitat. Management Considerations: The underlying management goal for this area should -.be to. prevent any loss of existing resource value. Preservation of existing habitats and vegetation is the preferred objective; however, on -site enhancement and/or restoration of a portion of existing habitat to equal the total existing habitat value is acceptable. F-9 Area of High Significance #S San Diego Creek - Upstream Reach Classification: Regionally significant riparian habitat. Description: Within the study area, .this segment of San Diego Creek supports a good example of a lowland riparian community.- This type of vegetation was once found along all,of the drainages crossing the Tustin Plain which has now been developed or converted to agricultural use. As a consequence, most of the drainages have been improved and their native riparianhabitats have been lost. This reach of San Diego Creek supports. a number of native riparian tree, shrub, and groundcover species. Although they grow along. the immediate drainage course only, they usually create dense stands. The habitat here is important to many smaller birds, medium and small mammals, reptile and amphibians. Cover, breeding and foraging habitat requirements are all met for -these wildlife. Some of the species which use this area are sensitive based on various status designations. These include black -shouldered kite, marsh hawk, American kestrel, black -crowned night heron, American bittern, least bittern, loggerhead shrike, and yellow warbler. This area's greatest value lies in its being the habitat for - a so . regionally limited biotic community, and it being a refuge for wildlife within an otherwise developing area. Management Considerations: The goal for managing this area should be -that there is no .loss of existing resource value. This goal should be met through the preservation of existing, habitat and - vegetation and/or enhancement and restoration. of existing habitat after any disturbance. • F-10 Area of High Significance #9 Bonita Reservoir Classification: Regionally. significant riparian habitat. Regionally significant freshwater marsh habitat. Description: This area essentially encompasses the designated impounded area upstream from Bonita Reservoir dam: It is a man-made habitat which is seasonally flooded by impounded run-off, but maintains saturated. soil throughout most years. Although an artificial habitat, the vegetation found here is native. Dense stands of both native riparian and freshwater marsh vegetation are present. -This vegetation provides valuable habitat . for a. wide variety of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians including many resident and migratory species. Bonita Reservoir represents one of the few sizable riparian and marsh habitats remaining in the study area, and county.- _In addition to- ` wildlife -requiring dense riparian and marsh vegetation; -the area serves- as habitat for a limited number of waterfowl which use a small area of .open water within the area.. A number -of -wildlife with special status designations are found here. These include western grebe, canvasback, black -shouldered kite- marsh hawk, black -crowned night- heron, American bittern, least bittern, yellow warbler, yellow -breasted chat and California red -legged frog. The area has high integrity as a. habitat- and, is limited in the region. Management Considerations: The management goal for this area should be to preserve existing habitat -value, with no loss. Direct preservation of existing habitat and vegetation should be the primary objective ,with restoration and/or enhance-ment being secondary and used only if some loss of existing habitat is unavoidable. F-11 0 • Area of High Significance #10 Sand Canyon Reservoir Classification: Open water/shoreline with regional significance as waterfowl habitat. Rare/endangered/unique species. Description: This area is defined by the reservoir and shoreline upstream from Sand Canyon Reservoir dam. ..It is a man-made habitat area which has gained value and importance by way of the loss of natural open water and shoreline habitats throughout the region. Sand Canyon Reservoir is valuable as .an area of undisturbed waterfowl habitat. It is used by a relatively. -large number of migratory waterfowl. Most noteworthy, it:is the winter habitat for several thousand Canada geese (up to 3000 geese have been observed) who are otherwise -relatively unknown 'in Orange County in high, concentrated numbers. Additionally, as many as 400 double -crested -cormorants have been seen using the open water and riparian habitat for foraging and roosting, respectively. The riparian habitat appears to be suitable for nesting for this species as well. For waterfowl species, and in- particular the Canada geese, this area serves as ovef-wintering and resting habitat. Other species of note which use this area are western - grebe, canvasback,,and California red -legged frog. Management Considerations: The management goal for this area should be no net ,loss- of in - kind resource value; while minimizing Ithe -loss of existing resource values. Preservation is the preferred objective; however, restoration and/or enhancement of remaining habitat following any unavoidable loss of existing resource base is acceptable. F-12 a • Areas of High Significance #11 and #12 Rare Plant Habitat Classification: Rare/Endangered/Unique Species. Description: These areas represent known habitats 'and populations of the Orange County turkish ragging (Chorizanthe staticoides var. compactd). One area is found on the earthen dam and adjacent hillsides of Sand Canyon- Reservoir the other area is found along a roadside in a major tributary to Shady Canyon. Orange County turkish rugging is a species recognized as rare and endangered by the California Native Plant Society. Typically, it is -found in sandy soil and, is most commonly associated with coast sage scrub. Orange County turkish rugging is reported to occur only along the Orange County coast, and has its population center in the San Joaquin Hills. Management - Considerations: The management goals of these - areas should be no loss of existing resource value with in -place preservation of existing habitat areas being the most effective means of achieving this goal. F-13 • Area of High Significance #13 Shady Canyon Classification: Regionally significant riparian habitat. Prime bird of prey nesting/roosting area. Prime bird of prey foraging/wintering area. Major wildlife movement corridor. Regionally significant oak woodland. Woodland/brushland/grassland, ecotone. Description: This area encompasses the ,entire middle and upper, watershed ,of Shady Canyon. Small portions of this area extend beyond the extreme southeast boundary of the study -area. With the exception, of several unimproved, dirt roads and on -going grazing activities, this area is natural and has -retained its native character. There are a variety, of physical habitats present which, .in turn, support excellent .examples of a variety of vegetation types. These -include well developed riparian, extensive oak woodland; coastal sage scrub and introduced :grasslands, Well- developed riparian ,woodland and forest follow ,the mainstein drainage. Often mixed with- the riparian vegetation, and found by itself on adjacent north -facing hillsides is. oak woodland. Intermixed throughout the hillside areas 'is coastal sage scrub. Introduced grassland predominates the level areas of the canyon floor, ridgelines and lower hillsides. The physical features and vegetation mosaic of this area, make it very important to a wide variety of wildlife forms. Diverse populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are found in abundance. Larger and medium=sized mammals and birds .are believed to use the canyon as a major movement corridor due to the presence of breeding, feeding, resting and cover habitat. Noteworthy species which use habitats in the area are ringtailed cat, barn owl, black -tailed gnatcatcher,. - cactus - wren, hairy woodpecker, . Bewick's wren,, western bluebird, loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler, grasshopper sparrow, Vesper sparrow and coast horned lizard. The area is also important to birds of prey due - to the numerous cliff and tree nesting and -roosting sites and nearby foraging habitat provided by grassland and open coastal sage scrub. Significant raptor species found Here are black -shouldered kite, Cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned_ hawk, marsh hawk, red -shouldered hawk, prairie falcon, merlin, American kestrel, barn owl, and possibly American peregrine falcon. The integrity of this canyon, as a habitat area is high and it represenfs one of the most important biological features of the San Joaquin Hills. F-14 a Management Considerations: This area should be managed so as to prevent any loss of existing riparian and oak woodland resources and to minimize ,the loss of other resources, -including ,grassland and coastal , sage scrub. These goals should be met by, preserving existing riparian and oak woodland vegetation and by retaining large, interconnected areas of contiguous grassland and coastal sage scrub vegetation. F-15 Area of High Significance #14 Bommer Canyon Classification: Regionally significant riparian habitat. Prime bird of prey nesting/roosting area. Prime bird of prey foraging/wintering area. Major wildlife movement corridor. Regionally significant oak woodland. - Woodland/brushland/grassland ecotone. Description: This area encompasses the entire middle and upper watershed of Bommer Canyon. Small portions of this area extend beyond the extreme southeast boundary of the study area. With the exception of several unimproved, dirt roads and on -going grazing activities, this area is natural and has retained its native character. There are a variety of physical -habitats present which, in turn, support excellent examples . of a variety of vegetation, types. These include riparian, oak "woodland, coastal sage scrub and introduced grasslands. Well developed riparian woodland and forest follow the mainstem drainage. Often -mixed with, the riparian vegetation, and found by itself on adjacent north -facing hillsides is oak woodland. Intermixed throughout the hillside areas is coastal sage scrub.- Introduced grassland .predominates the level areas of the canyon floor, -ridgelines-and, lower hillsides. The physical features and vegetation mosaic of this area make it very important to: a wide variety of wildlife forms. Diverse populations of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians -are found in abundance. Larger and medium-sized mammals and birds are believed to use the canyon as a major movement corridor due to the ' presence 'of breeding, feeding, -resting, and ,cover. habitat. Noteworthy, species which use habitats in the area are ringtailed cat, barn owl, black -tailed -gnatcatcher, cactus 'wren, hairy woodpecker, Bewick's wren, western bluebird, loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler, grasshopper sparrow, Vesper sparrow and coast horned lizard. The area is also important to birds of prey due to the numerous cliff and tree nesting and roosting sites and nearby foraging habitat provided by grassland- .and open coastal sage scrub-. Significant raptor species found here are black -shouldered kite, Cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, marsh hawk, red=shouldered hawk, prairie. falcon, merlin, American kestrel, barn owl, _-and possibly American peregrine falcon. The integrity of this canyon as a habitat area is high and it represents- one of the most important biological features .of the San Joaquin Hills. Management Considerations:' This area should be managed so as to prevent any loss of existing riparian and oak woodland resources and to minimize the loss of other resources, including grassland and coastal sage scrub. F-16 a These goals should. be met by preserving existing riparian and oak woodland vegetation and by retaining large, interconnected areas of contiguous grassland and coastal sage scrub vegetation. F-17 r� Area of Moderate Significance #15 Limestone Canyon Buffer Classification: Buffer -area. Description: This area represents a "buffer strip", generally' following the watershed boundary delineating the - adjacent area of high significance. Occasionally, the strip also follows. a tributary drainage, or minor ridgeline in order to cross the canyon. Mostly, the buffer strip. is 300 feet wide. However,. the strip is wider in some areas to include broader ridgelines and/or relatively small stands of native vegetation which enhance the area buffering capacity. The native character of this area is often diminished significantly. However, buffers are an integral part of avoiding the impacts of future development at the edge of areas of high significance from "spilling over" into important resources. Management Considerations: Management of thisarea- should focus on the goal of minimizing the loss of the buffering function. This should be accomplished through the retention. of -'a portion of the buffer area in its natural condition. (Note: The majority, of resources within this area are outside the City'.s sphere of influence). F-18 • Area of Moderate Significance #16 Bee and Round Canyons Buffer Classification: Buffer area. Description: This area represents a "buffer .strip", generally following the watershed boundary delineating. the adjacent area of high significance. Occasionally, the strip also follows a tributary drainage, or minor ridgeline in order tocross the canyon. Mostly, the buffer, strip is 300 feet wide. However, the strip is wider in- some areas to include broader.ridgelines and/or relatively small stands of native vegetation which enhance the area buffering capacity. The native character of this area is often diminished significantly. However, buffers are an integral part of avoiding the impacts of future development at the edge of areas of. high significance from "spilling over" into important resources. Management Considerations: Management of this area should focus on the goal of minimizing the loss of the buffering function. This should be accomplished through the retention of a portion of the buffer area in its natural condition. F-19 u Area of Moderate Significance- #17 Agua Chinon Wash Classification: Buffer area.. Locally significant stands of native vegetation. Link between habitat areas- of high significance and locally, significant habitats. Description: This area encompasses stands of coastal sage scrub and scattered oak trees which are significant within their local context. The area also abuts an area of high significance. and, therefore, -serves as a buffer area. Generally, the area has retained most of its native character despite several unimproved, dirt roads and on- going grazing activities. . The physical features and native or- naturalized- vegetation present represent marginal habitat areas in comparison to habitats of high significance within the study area. Nevertheless,.a-relatively full complement of wildlife characteristic of .coastal sage scrub and. introduced grassland are present, including red -shouldered hawk, American kestrel, bam owl, black -tailed gnatcatcher, cactus wren, hairy woodpecker, Bewick's wren, loggerhead shrike,- and coast horned lizard, all of which are sensitive species. Several species less tolerant of human disturbances .as well as those species requiring woodland or riparian habitat are absent, however. In addition to the locally significant habitats, this area also serves as a buffer to an adjacent- area of high significance. As such, it is an integral part of regional resource management by providing the opportunity to prevent the `impacts. of future nearby developments from "spilling over" into highly important resource areas. Management Considerations: The goal for managing this area should be to minimize the loss of existing resource values. This should be accomplished through the retention of a portion of the area in its existing condition as natural open space. F-20 • to is Area of Moderate Significance #18 Borrego Canyon Buffer Classification: Buffer area. Link between habitat areas of high significance and locally significant habitats. Description: This area represents a "buffer, strip," gendrally following the watershed. boundary delineating the adjacent area of high significance. Occasionally, the strip also follows a tributary drainage, or minor ridgeline in order to cross the canyon. Mostly; the buffer strip is. 300 feet wide. However,- the 'strip is wider in some areas to include broader ridgelines and/or relatively small stands of native vegetation which, enhance the area buffering capacity and are enhanced by their proximity to Borrego Canyon, Agua Chinon and the Sinks. The native character of this area is often diminished significantly. However, buffers are, an integral part of avoiding the impacts of future development at the- edge of areas of high -significance from "spilling over into important resources. Management Considerations: Management of this- area should focus on' the goal of minimizing the loss of the buffering function: This should be accomplished through the retention of a portion of the buffer area in its naturalized condition. F-21 is Area of Moderate Significance #19 Rattlesnake Reservoir Classification: Open water/shoreline with local values as waterfowl habitat: Description: This area includes a body of man-made, impounded water- devoid of significant shoreline or backwater vegetation. The shoreline is not intensely used or developed -by, humans, and disturbances to the area are limited. The availability of open water represents an, opportunity for waterfowl habitat. Several species of -waterfowl -and other water birds use this area as resting habitat during the fall and spring migration periods. During .these periods. and the winter- months, fairly, large numbers of birds use the reservoir, including western grebe and canvasback which -are sensitive species. The moderate importance of . this area: is derived primarily from the overall lack of open water habitat in general within the study area and region. Management Considerations: Minimized loss of resource value should be the management goal -for this area. This should be accomplished by. retaining this resource in -its entirety, or nearly so, in- its existing condition as an open space feature. F-22 F� Area of Moderate Significance #20 Siphon Reservoir Classification: Open water/shoreline with local values as waterfowl habitat: Description: This area includes a -body of man-made, impounded water devoid of significant, shoreline or,.backwater vegetation. The shoreline is not intensely used ' or developed, however, and on -going disturbances to the area are limited. The availability of open. water represents an opportunity for waterfowl habitat. Several species of waterfowl and other water birds -use this area as resting habitat during- the fall and spring migration periods. During these periods .and the winter months, fairly large numbers of birds use the reservoir; including western grebe and canvasback which are sensitive species. The moderate importance of this area is: derived primarily from the overall lack of open water habitat in general within the study area and region. Management Considerations: Minimized loss of resource value should be the management goal for this area. This should be accomplished by retaining this resource in its entirety; or nearly so,: in its existing condition as an open space feature. F-23 is Area of Moderate Significance #21 Lambert Reservoir Classification: Open water/shoreline-with local',values as waterfowl habitat. Description: This area includes a body of man-made, impounded water devoid of significant shoreline or backwater vegetation. The shoreline is not intensely used or developed-, however, and - on -going disturbances to the area are limited. The availability, of open water represents an opportunity for waterfowl habitat. Several species of waterfowl and other water birds use this area as resting habitat during the fall and spring migration periods. During these periods and the winter months, fairly large numbers of birds use the reservoir, including wester-n grebe and canvasback which are sensitive species. The moderate importance of this area is derived primarily from the overall lack of open water habitat in general within the study area and region. Management Considerations: Minimized loss of resource value should be the- management goal for this area. This should be accomplished by retaining this resource in its entirety, or nearly so, in its .existing condition as an open space feature. F-24 • Area of Moderate Significance #22 San Diego Creek - Downstream Reach Classification: Locally significant freshwater marsh habitats Description: This stretch of San Diego _Creek ptovides an effective wetland corridor between the San Joaquin freshwater marsh and Upper Newport Bay.. This .area is an. -improved flood control and is completely altered from its native condition. It is a soft, bottom channel, however, and considerable wetland vegetation reestablishes itself almost immediately after channel maintenance. Particularly during the winter months when large numbers of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds are in the area, this corridor, is intensely used. Some species of birds- also use the channel as a foraging area. Some of these are sensitive, including mountain plover, snowy plover, long -billed curlew, and short -billed dowitcher. Management Considerations: This should be managed so as to minimize any loss of resource value: Maintenance should not preclude the reestablishment of a. wetland character to the area. '(Note: The San Diego Greek Channel along this reach is owned and maintained by the County of Orange and under.their jurisdiction). F-25 • Area -of Moderate Significance #23 Woodbridge Lakes Classification: Open water/shoreline with local values as waterfowl habitat. Description: This area includes two bodies of .man-made, impounded water devoid of significant shoreline or backwater vegetation: The shoreline is not intensely used or developed. The availability of -open water- represents an opportunity for waterfowl habitat. Several species. of waterfowl 'and other water birds use this area as resting habitat during the fall and spring migration periods. During these periods and the winter months, . fairly large numbers of birds use the lakes, including western grebe and canvasback which are sensitive species. . The moderate importance of this area is derived primarily from the. overall -lack of open water habitat in general within the.study area and region. Management Considerations: Minimized loss of resource value should be the management goal for- this area. This should 'be' accomplished by,, retaining this resource in its entirety,:or nearly so, in its existing condition as an open space feature. F-26 i is Area of Moderate Significance #24 San Diego -Creek Buffer Classification: Buffer area. Descriptions This area consists of a thin strip, approximately 300 feet wide, representing a setback from the edge of an area :of , high significance. Generally, the buffer area is extensively altered from its native conditions by agricultural use or -clearing and native vegetation is generally lacking. The importance of this area lies in its capacity to prevent future development impacts from "spilling over' and affecting 'resources of high significance. Management Considerations: Management of this area should focus on the goal of minimizing the loss. of the buffering function. This should be accomplished through the retention of the area in -extremely low intensity uses with -minimal development., F-27 Is Area of Moderate Significance 425 San Diego Creek - Irvine Center Reach Classification: Locally significant riparian habitats. Description: This relatively short reach of San. Diego Creek located within Irvine Center exhibits a moderately high degree of disturbance which has resulted in the loss of considerable native riparian vegetation from this area. As a consequence, this area is not as significant as the reaches of San Diego Creek both upstream and downstream of Irvine'Center. This area does, however, possess enough native vegetation and native riparian character to- make it useful, as a link between .the areas of high significance upstream and downstream Not only is this area a valuable means of interaction between upstream and downstream areas; it also has the :potential to restore itself to a level of high significance by the growth and reestablishment of native riparian vegetation given enough time. Some of the wildlife found here are sensitive. These include yellow warbler and Bewick's wren. Management Considerations: This area should be managed so as- to minimize the loss of resource value by the retention of this area in entirety, or nearly so, as natural open space. F-28 a • Area of Moderate Significance #26 Sand Canyon Wash Buffer Classification: Buffer area. Description: This area consists of a =thin strip, approximately 300 feet- wide, representing a setback from the edge of an area of high_ significance. Generally, the buffer area is extensively altered from its native conditions by agricultural use or clearing and native vegetation is generally lacking. The importance of this area lies in its capacity to prevent future development impacts from "spilling over". and affecting resources of high significance. Management Considerations: Management of this area should focus, on the goal of minimizing the loss of the buffering function. This should be accomplished through the retention of the area in ' extremely low intensity uses with minimal development. F-29 0 Area of High Significance #27 Laguna Reservoir Classification: Open water/shoreline with regional values as waterfowl habitat. Rare/endangered/unique species Description: This area includes a body, of man -made, -impounded water devoid of significant shoreline or backwater vegetation. 'The shoreline is not intensely used' or developed, however, and on -going disturbances to the area are limited. The availability of open water represents an opportunity for waterfowl habitat. Several species of waterfowl and other water birds use this area as testing habitat during -the fall and spring migration periods. During these periods and the winter months, fairly large numbers of birds use the reservoir, including western grebe and canvasback which are sensitive species. Also noteworthy, as many as 150 Canada- geese have been recently counted on the reservoir and the surrounding slopes... . The importance of this area is derived primarily from the overall lack of open water habitat in general within the study area and region. Management Considerations: The management goal for -this - area should 'be no net loss of in - kind resource value, while minimizing the loss of existing resource values. Preservation is the preferred objective; however, restoration and/or enhancement of remaining habitat following any unavoidable loss of existing resource base is acceptable. F-30 • i • Area of Moderate Significance ##28 Bonita Reservoir Buffer Classification: Buffer area. Description: This area consists of a thin strip, approximately 300 feet wide,. representing a setback from 'the edge of an area of high significance. Generally, the buffer area -is extensively, altered from its native conditions by agricultural use - or clearing -and native vegetation is generally lacking. Management Considerations: The importance of this area lies in _its capacity to prevent future development impacts from "spilling over." and affecting resources of high 'significance. Management of this area should focus on the goal of minimizing the loss of the buffering function_. -This should be accomplished through the retention of the area in extremely low intensity uses with minimal development.- F-31 0 Area of Moderate Significance #29 Sand Canyon Reservoir Buffer i • Classification: Buffer area. Description: This area consists of a thin strip, approximately 300 feet wide, representing a setback from the edge of an area of high significance. Generally, the buffer area is extensively altered from its native conditions by agricultural use or clearing and native vegetation is generally lacking. The importance of this area lies in its- capacity to prevent future development impacts from "spilling over" and'affecting resources of high significance. Management Considerations: Management of this area should focus on the goal of minimizing the loss of the buffering function. This should be accomplished through the -retention of the area in extremely low intensity.uses with minimal development.. F-32 10 Area of Moderate Significance #30 William R. Mason Regional Park Lakes -Classification: Open water/shoreline with local values as waterfowl habitat. Description: This. area includes two bodies of man-made, impounded. water devoid of significant shoreline or backwater vegetation. The shoreline is not intensely used .or developed. The availability of open water represents- an opportunity for waterfowl habitat. Several species of waterfowl and other water birds use this area as resting habitat during the fall and spring migration periods. During these periods and the winter months, fairly large numbers of birds use the lakes, including western grebe and canvasback which are sensitive species. The moderate importance of this area is derived ,primarily from -the overall lack -of open water -habitat in general within the study area and region. Management Considerations: Minimized loss of resource value should be, the management goal for this area. This should be accomplished by retaining this resource in its entirety, or nearly so, in. its existing condition as an open space feature. (Note: These lakes are under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange). F-33 LI a Area of Moderate Significance #31 . Shady and Bommer Canyon Buffers Classification: Buffer area. Description: This area represents a "buffer strip", -generally following the watershed boundary. delineating the adjacent .area. . of high significance. Occasionally, the strip also .follows a tributary drainage, or minor ridgeline in order to cross the canyon. Mostly, the buffer strip is 300, feet wide. However, the strip is wider in some areas to include broader ridgelines and/or relatively small stands � of native vegetation which enhance the area buffering capacity. The native charactdr of this area is often diminished significantly. However, buffers are an integral. part of, avoiding the .impacts of future development at -the -edge of 'areas of high significance from "spilling over" into important resources. Management Considerations: Management. of this area should focus on the goal of minimizing the loss of -the buffering function. This should be accomplished through the retention of a portion of the buffer area in its natural condition. F-34 • Area of Moderate Significance #32 Shady Canyon Tributary Classification: Buffer area. Locally significant stands, of native vegetation. Description: This area encompasses stands of coastal sage -scrub and scattered oak trees which are significant within their. local context. The area also abuts an area of'highsignificance and`, therefore, serves as -a buffer area. Generally; -the area -has retained most of its native character despite several, unimproved, dirt roads and on- going grazing activities. The physical features and native or naturalized vegetation present represent marginal habitat areas in comparison to habitats of.high significance -within the study area. Nevertheless, a relatively full complement of wildlife characteristic of coastal sage scrub and introduced grassland are present, including red -shouldered., hawk, American kestrel; barn owl,, black -tailed gnatcatcher; cactus wren, hairy woodpecker, Bewick's wren, loggerhead shrike,, and. coast horned lizard, all of which are, sensitive species. Several species less tolerant of human disturbances as well as : those species requiring woodland or riparian habitat are absent. In addition to the locally significant habitats, this _area also serves as a buffer to an adjacent area of high significance.. As such, it is an integral part of regional resource management by providing the opportunity to prevent the impacts of future' nearby developments from "spilling over" into highly important resource. areas. Management Considerations: The goal for managing this area should be to minimize the loss, of existing resource values. This should be accomplished, through the retention of a portion of the area in its naturalized condition' as natural open space. F-35 0 a • Area of Moderate Significance #33 Eucalyptus Wind Breaks Classification: Locally significant vegetation. Description:. This area actually ' consists of .numerous sub- areas- representing eucalyptus wind breaks. These wind .breaks are well developed and visually dominate the landscape. In some cases -these wind breaks have been extensively trimmed and thinned, presumably, for reasons of public health and safety. Many remain in their unaltered condition. While not important in strict biological terms, these windbreaks. . are reflective of the area's 'agrarian heritage and have' a cultural significance. In addition, they, serve a. .moderately important ecological function in that several species of raptorial, birds use these as roosting sites. included among these are the red tailed hawk, American kestrel, black -shouldered kite, and turkey vulture. Management Considerations: These resources should be managed so as to retain their existing cultural value. This should be accomplished by continuing to incorporate these areas into the- landscape of developed areas. It is preferred, however, that required maintenance be minimized by the use of setbacks, from roads and structures, to reduce public health and safety hazards. This is in :contrast to, current practices of extensive pruning which significantly diminishes the value of these resources. F-36 a • Area of Moderate Significance #34 Sand Canyon Road Oak Trees Classification: Locally significant vegetation. Description: This area consists of the oak trees lining Old Laguna Road- and both sides rof Sand Canyon Road- between I-5_ and I-465. In general, these trees are of horticultural origin and a number of them are specimen.quality. While not important in strict biological terms,, -these. trees are reflective of the area's heritage; and thus have a cultural significance. Management Considerations: These resources should be managed so as 'to retain their existing cultural value. This should be accomplished by incorporating these trees into the development for the area. It is preferred that maintenance be minimized by the use of setbacks from roads and structures. F-37 Area of High Significance #351 Canada Geese Foraging Area - Classification: Rare, Endangered and Unique Species Habitat. -Description: This. area, encompassing the northern flank of Quail Ridge. and is:_ a key component of the habitat for the wintering population of Canada geese at Sand Canyon Reservoir. This large population of geese is a regionally .significant wildlife resource found nowhere else in Orange County.. While the reservoir ,itself serves as the resting and night habitat for the winter population of as many as 3,000 geese, this area serves as the foraging and daylight habitat for these birds. Early every morning of their winter stay, these birds Ieave the reservoir and, travel the short distance to this area and forage until the late evening, then return to the reservoir This area is critical to the geese wintering habitat. Without this forage habitat, it is .not known whether .the geese would continue to overwinter in the study area. At a minimum, the loss of this area would represent. a serious interruption to 'the established behavior of the population found here. Management Considerations: This resource area, due to the unknown - consequences of disturbance or alteration should be preserved with no loss of existing resource. value. . Designation of this area is. based upon preliminary information from a study currently underway. The description found here, and the area boundaries shown on the Biotic Resources map are, therefore; subject to- change pending the conclusion of the study. F-38 0 APPENDIX G MITIGATION PROGRAM • CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION .. . ..... ......... . .............. G-1 II APPROACH.................... .. ........... G-2 III ' STUDY LEVIITATIONS ...................... ... G-4 IV EXISTING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES ................ G-5 V MITIGATION PLANNING GOALS ........ ........... : G-8 VI RVIPLEMENTATING ACTIONS .... ...... ......... 0-10 VII -REFERENCES .................................. G-19 APPENDICES G-I Summary of Conservation and Open Space Goals, Objectives and Implementing Actions Pertaining to Biological Resources G-II Summary of Hillside Development Manual Policies Relating to Biological Resources. G-III Resoultion 81-7, Eucalyptus Windrow Preservation Policy • INTRODUCTION. Theinventory and analysis of biological resources found within the preceding sections. of this report broadly accomplished two tasks:, 1) The determination and development of evaluation criteria with which to define various levels of ecological significance/sensitivity; and 2) the application of these criteria to the study area in order to locate and map significant/sensitive biological resources which represent potential constraints to. development. This study is intended to -provide information and planning ,guidelines fundamental to the management of these sensitive and significant biological resources. It -provides specific mitigation measures. by which biological resources can be protected in light of anticipated impacts from various types and intensities of development. In addressing these measures,, this report: 1) briefly reviews practices at the local, state -and federal levels; 1) suggests basic mitigation planning goals and discusses the rationale for these; and 3) makes recommendations for appropriate mitigative actions and their implementation. G-1 L� C7 M APPROACH -As in the case of determining the level of resource significance itself, the question of what constitutes appropriate mitigation is a difficult one to answer. More often. than not local, state and federal agencies are not consistent in either the type of resources protected or. the -manner and degree to which resources are protected and managed. For many of the factors customarily, considered in land use planning, the intent of mitigation is readily known as the result of laws, codes and ordinances written specifically to protect the public from health and safety hazards. This is not, however, the case with biological resources. . Rather than being a basic determination founded on legal requirements and sound engineering principles, the mitigation of impacts to, biological resources has largely been a . subjective matter based on individual experience and interpretation. Although some related biological resources are addressed in terms of their. protection and management by laws, codes and .policies, they are limited to legally protected rare and endangered - species, riparian habitats,' wetlands and certain other resources of aesthetic/cultural value, such as eucalyptus windrows. The lack of a broader program to conserve and protect biological resources has been a fundamental problem in managing ecological systems. Too often, this problem has resulted in piecemeal attempts at resource management and the loss of overall resource integrity. � What -is needed is a program which will lead to the management of the full spectrum of biological resources on a consistent basis. The central element and strength Of such a program should be that it is broad enough to encompass all resources types and therefore allow a regional application, yet specific enough to provide meaningful guidelines to planners and decision -makers on a local basis. The inventory and analysis phase of the MEA identified a limited number of mitigation guidelines, policies and requirements for those specific resource types now being protected and managed by local, state and federal agencies. In' addition_to these, the City of Irvine General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, and the Hillside Development Manual identified broader based objectives,. guidelines and implementing actions for biological resource.protection. Still, the necessary specifies are not provided to guide planners and decision -makers on a consistent, regionwide basis. G-2 6 The approach to developing this mitigation program was intended. to close the gap between general objectives and guidelines, .and their specific implementation. Whereas, the existing City .programs and plans were used as,. the basis for this program, the mitigations contained herein are intended to specify, as much as possible, exactly how the City programs and plans should be implemented,, if they are to be effective 'in meeting established conservation and open space goals and objectives: Iii order to' achieve this intent, it was necessary to elaborate, expand.upon and add to the existing programs, and plans, information obtained from scientific reports, state- and -federal programs, the author's experience and persons consulted. G-3 *1' III STUDY LIMITATIONS This study represents a first level mitigation program. It is intended to. provide management guidelines for use in the City's project planning. and review process.. Whereas, these guidelines are often fairly, speck in their description, they are not intended to be applied so strictly and rigidly so as to preclude the reasonable and balanced development of land. Rather, the findings presented above should be , applied and evaluated on a site specific basis through further study. Furthermore, this analysis is not static. As additional information becomes available through research on resource management -techniques, the findings contained herein should be refined and updated. G-4 EXISTING -PRACTICES AND -PROCEDURES Existing practices and procedures for the mitigation of adverse impacts to biological resources are generally deficient and ineffective- in providing adequate resource management and protection within the City. Primarily, this is,due.to.a lack of consistency among the various levels. of government in their regulation and, more importantly, a lack, of protection for the full range of resources that occur within the City. At the federal level, protection of biological resources is provided principally by the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Clean Water Act (Section 404) of 1977, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The first pieceof legislation affords protection to individual species designated as either "Endangered" or "Threatened!'. and has the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service as its. implementing authority. In addition to providing- protection -for a very limited number, of species only, the Act in its literal interpretation pertains only to projects which require some -type of action by a federal agency (i.e., funding, permit approval, sponsorship). The second piece of legislation provides protection for major riparian wetland; aquatic and marine environments. Although the U.S. Department of Defense,. Army Corps of Engineers is the implementing agency for this Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the advising authority to the Corps in matters 'dealing specifically with biological resources. Here again, the resources given protection are very -narrow In -scope. The third piece of legislation is considerably broader in scope. It gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service review authority for all federal projects. During the review process the Service makes recommendations for the mitigation of impacts to biological resources. The Service recently adopted a mitigation policy which includes a standard and consistent tool for this purpose (Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 55, January 1981). � However,, it is applied to federal projects only and is not used for other public and private projects which make up the majority of those within the City of Irvine. A similar situation exists at the sate level. There are two primary pieces of legislation which specifically apply to biological resources. These are the California Endangered Species Act of 1969 and the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1600, et. seq. Both laws are implemented by the California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and • Game. Like the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act G-5 pertains to a limited number of plant and wildlife species which meet criteria of "'Endangered!' or "Rare." Here again, the Act pertains only to public projects where there is direct public.agency involvement. Sections 1601-6 of the Fish and.Game Code'applies to both private and public projects; however, it remains narrow in the .range of resources protected, applying only to riparian, aquatic and wetland habitats within the high water mark of major rivers, lakes and streams from which wildlife and fish .derive significant benefit. In addition, a third_piece of legislation, the California Environmental Quality Act, gives 'the California Department of Fish and Game -the opportunity to review and, comment upon public and private projects. While the, Department can make recommendations for effective and comprehensive mitigation, there may not be the means to implement these- at the local level. Actions that are taken are usually reactionary and too late to be fully effective. : Within:the purview of the City, there are existing programs and plans which provide the basis for the protection of biological resources. First, there is the ability of the City to exact mitigation measures ' during the environmental review process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Historically, the problem here- has been that specific measures have not been incorporated into projects until late in the- design and - implementation phase. Additionally, such measures do not necessarily reflect long range, region -wide resource management goals effectively. Second; the City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element provides the City with the necessary direction towards the preservation and enhancement of the City's natural environment. It follows from the many functions of open space, that this element is strongly related to other elements in the general plan. The Conservation and Open Space Element is. important in providing input into the land use, circulation, and urban, design elements. A summary of the goals, objectives, and implementing actions of the Conservation and Open Space Element which apply to biological resources are summarized in Appendix G-I. Third, the City has a Hillside Development Manual which sets forth fairly specific policies as' well as -the timing for their implementation with regard to biological resources. These policies are outlined in Appendix G-II. Fourth, the City adopted Resolution 1036 (see Appendix G-III, the Eucalyptus Windrow Preservation Policy which serves to protect and preserve the extensive network of eucalyptus windrows ,existing in the City. From the discussion and information presented above, it is clear that the :federal, state and City have developed- and established a sound foundation for the conservation and • preservation of biological resources. In fact, at the City- level, there exists programs to preserve not only the narrow range of rare, endangered and threatened biological G-6 a • resources, but a more comprehensive range of .resources as well. Despite past efforts, however,, there remains a general. lack of specific implementation actions with which to implement and monitor the effectiveness of conservation and preservation practices. As discussed in the approach to this study, the measures and actions contained herein are intended. not to change but to augment existing programs. Through. the more specific - measures and actions provided in this report, 'it is felt that the City can more effectively and consistently achieve the goals and objectives they have establish for. the protection of its natural biological environment. G-7 • MA MITIGATION PLANNING GOALS The criteria used to define biological sensitivity in the first phase of the City MEA were developed as an outgrowth of the overall goal of preserving the existing diversity of biological resources found within the City and -its sphere of influence. This is based on the premise that stability of ecosystems is directly .related to diversity. The .overall mitigation planning goal for this phase is the same, that is the preservation of diversity. Included areconsiderations for both the variety of vegetation and wildlife resources - existing in the City and its sphere and, as much as. possible, their present distribution and relative abundance. The overall goal is not, to merely preserve one or - two of each type, but to preserve as many of each kind as is possible: Within the overall goal of preserving biological- diversity, more specific objectives are outlined for individual .resource types. Conceptually, these objectives were adopted from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy mentioned earlier. That policy establishes guidance -for. U.S. Fish and, Wildlife Service personnel involved in making recommendations to protect or conserve fish and wildlife resources. Explicitly, the policy is used to: 1) ensure consistent- and effective recommendations; 2) allow government agencies and private developers to anticipate mitigation recommendations and plan for -them early; 3) reduce agency and developer conflicts as well as project delays. The fundamental principle which guided the application of these objectives .to the City MEA is that. the degree of mitigation correspond to the scarcity of the resource .at risk. Within the high, moderate and low rating, system for biological sensitivity three mitigation objectives based on levels of decreasing sensitivity were identified. These were: 1. No loss of existing resource value - intended to protect resources which are unique and/or irreplaceable in the region. (The term "existing resource value" refers to the nature, extent and condition of the resource, as it exists.) 2. No net loss of in -kind resource value (while minimizing loss of existing resource value) - intended to protect resources which are relatively scarce, or are becoming scarce on a regional basis. (The term "in -kind" means "the same as, or similar to.") G-8 3. Minimize loss of resource value - intended. to, protect resources which are relatively abundant, but are important, or are of moderate value to, regional ecosystems. (Here "resource value" means "of equal importance or value, but not necessarily the same as.") Each resource type and their corresponding ,objectives, are listed in the following section. Included also are specific implementation actions designed to augment those contained in the City Conservation and Open Space Element. As noted, the biological mitigation program should be applied, as early in the planning and review process as is possible. The program should not react to a ,particular proposed plan; rather, the plan should be responsive to the mitigation program. The. two- primary determinants of exactly when the application should take place are the types of:resource at risk, and the intensity of land use proposed. For example, the incorporation of mitigation measures. for buffer areas under conditions of low intensity. development need not occur until later in the implementation phases of project .planning since- both the'recommended action and listing of development areas remain flexible up to this point. On the other hand, the successful incorporation of recommended actions . to - protect the habitat of an endangered species under conditions of high intensity development depends on their early. input to the planning phase. - That way, they are considered - early and . planned . around throughout the planning and implementation process. It is suggested that the biological mitigation program be applied as part of the normal City environmental review process. Using these procedures, the applicant would be made aware of constraints and recommended actions at the time of. pre -filing, or, "the EIR or mitigated Negative Declaration pre -preparation discussions.. The applicant would then be responsible for incorporating mitigations into his project and the, environmental documentation prior to approval and certification,. respectively. Further, it is suggested that the applicant include an open space management plan as part of the project plansubmittal. This plan should detail, in graphic and narrative formats, - how the project will incorporate and accomplish themitigative action required of the project. This need not be a lengthy document, but should contain enough information to clearly demonstrate the project's responsiveness and key, features related to the management of biological resources as directed by the mitigation program. Also, it should be prepared with the assistance or input of a qualified biologist, if necessary, either directly or indirectly (such as through the EIR process). Guidelines for the preparation of open space management plans are presented in Appendix G-IV. G-9 0 r� VI IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS Introduction Each area of moderate -or high significance within the study area has .been identified by name and number and discussed in preceding sections of this report.. Within the description of each area, the nature or type of resources of significance contained in that area were identified (ie, buffer area, regionally significant riparian habitat, etc.). Recommended mitigative actions for each of these resource types is outlined beginning on - the following page. Because most areas contain more than one. resource type, more than one mitigative action will apply to each area in most cases. In these situations, it is the most strict of the actions which should be.considered first. For example, if an area contains a regionally significant -oak woodland and a woodland/brushland/grassland ecotone, the recommended actions for mitigation would be - to preserve the woodland in place and retain 60 percent of the, ecotone, respectively. In this case, the woodland should be first delineated and designated for preservation in. its entirely, and areas of brushland and grassland .habitats should .then 'be. added to the woodland to make up the 60 percent of the total to be retained. With regard to the specific recommended actions; percentages -and/or minimum areas of resource types to be protected are often used. The reader should note that this attempt at qualification is based on- -scientific study - where available. In most cases, however, empirical data is just not available and the numbers used are the opinions of the. author and other biologists consulted, based on their years of experience in the field. This: is not pointed out to dilute or question the findings contained hereunder. Rather, it notifies the reader as to the prudence and care with which significant biological resources should be managed, protected and conserved. G-10 C7 • IlaLEMENTING ACTIONS BY RESOURCE TYPE 1 BUFFER AREA (Areas 15, 16. 17, 18.24, -26, 28, 29, 31-, 32) Objective: Minimize loss of resource value (i.e., as buffer area). Recommended Action: Retain 20 percent of area in -existing condition, preferably by preserving natural open space adjacent to borders or areas possessing high sensitivity. Where required, fuel modification zones employing -a graduated clearing approach may make up a portion of the buffer zone. Recreation open space, agriculture and greenbelts - may also be substituted as a portion of the zone however, dense tree and shrub plantings at the edge of areas of high'sensitivity should be included. Overall this.* zone should provide a 300-foot development setback from the edge of high ecological sensitivity areas. 2 LINK BETWEEN HABITAT AREAS. OF HIGH, SIGNIFICANCE AND LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT HABITATS (Areas Objective: Minimize loss of resource value. (i.e., as link). Recommended Action: Retain 20 percent of area as natural open space in the form of a network of contiguous corridors, preferably around :and along drainage courses. Individual corridors to be retained in, natural condition must be no less than 100 feet wide in order to be effective. 3 LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT RIPARIAN HABITATS (Area 25) Objective: Minimize loss of resource value. Recommended Action: Retain as part of open space in entirety, or nearly so. Also, it is recommended. that the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) be contacted to determine if a 1601 notification should be filed (see California Fish and Game Code, Sections 1601-1606). G-11 Note: Unless . 80 percent can be retained, preservation efforts will probably not be worthwhile due to the typically small, isolated nature of these resources. 4 'LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT FRESHWATER MARSH HABITATS (Area 22) Objective: Minimize loss of resource value. Recommended Action: Retain in entirety, or nearly so, as natural open space. Also, it is -recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) be contacted to determine if a 1601 notification should be filed (see California Fish and Game -Code, Sections 1601-1606). Note: Unless 80 percent can be retained, ,preservation efforts will ,probably not be worthwhile due to the typically small, isolated nature of these resources. 5 LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT STANDS OF NATIVE VEGETATION/OTHER VEGETATION (Areas 17, 32, 33. 34) Objective: Minimize loss of resource value (i.e., as habitat). Recommended Action: Retain 20 percent of areas 17 and 32 as -natural open space in the form of a network of contiguous corridors, preferably around and along drainage courses. Individual corridors to .be retained in natural condition must be no less than 100 feet wide in order to be effective. Windrows located within agricultural areas, and the oak trees lining Sand Canyon Avenue,'should be retained.for their aesthetic and cultural value in accordance with established planning policies (see Appendixb-III). 6 OPEN WATER/SHORELINE .WITH LOCAL VALUES- AS WATERFOWL HABITAT (Areas 19, 20, 21, 23, 30) Recommended Action: Retain -in entirety, or nearly so, as natural open space: Also, it is recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) -be contacted to determine. if a 1601 notification should be filed (see California Fish and Game -Code, Sections 1601-1606). Note: Unless at least 80 percent can be retained preservation efforts will probably not be • worthwhile due to the typically small, isolated nature of these resources. G 12 6 • 7 RARE, ENDANGERED AND UNIQUE SPECIES HABITAT (Areas 6, 10, 11, 12, Objective: No loss of existing resource value. Recommended Action: Identify/delineate extent of existing -habitat area and preserve in place as permanent open space. Consult DFG, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in accordance- with the intended goals of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and California Endangered 'Species Act of 1970, and other qualified biologists to determine -the need for additional species - specific actions, such.as: o Screening and setbacks from habitat areas,- as in the case of highly sensitive wildlife species, to allow continued use of entire habitat available;. o The use of fencing or other means of controlling access to habitat -areas; as in the case of fragile flora or wildlife habitat'. 8 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT RIPARIAN HABITAT (Areas 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14)- Objective: No loss of exiting resource value. Recommended Action: Prepare riparian preservation and . management plan to identify/delineate extent of existing habitat and provide specific guidelines to preserve in place as permanent open space. Preparation of the plan should include consultation with DFG through, required notification process (Sections 1601-1606, California Fish and Game Code) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit process (Section 404, Clean Water Act), if applicable, to determine additional protective actions, such as: o Setbacks and edge screening of adjacent development to allow continued use of entire habitat available by wildlife; G-13 0 o The use of fencing and other means of controlling access and disturbance to maintain values; o Diversions or control'of increased flood runoff from adjacent and upstream urban developments to prevent the scouring of bottom and bank°vegetation; , _ o Maintenance of existing water supply for the continued support of habitats. Note: In some -cases, these measure may not be adequate due to 'the presence of irreplaceable flora or physical habitat features. 9 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT OAK WOODLAND/SAVANNAH (Areas 1. 2.3.4, 5 1• 3. 14) Objective: No loss of exiting resource value. Recommended Action: Prepare oak tree. preservation and management plan to identify/delineate extent of existing. habitat and provide specific guidelines to preserve in place as permanent open space. Preparation of the plan should include consultation with DFG through required notification process (Sections 1601-1.606, California Fish and -Game Code) and the U.S., Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit process (Section 404, Clean Water Act), if applicable, to determine additional protective actions,'such as: o Setbacks and edge screening of adjacent :development. to allow continued use of entire habitat available by wildlife; o The use of fencing and other means of controlling access and" disturbance to maintain values; o Diversions or control of increased flood runoff from adjacent and upstream urban developments -to prevent the scouring of bottom,and bank vegetation; o Maintenance of existing water supply for the continued support of habitats. Note: In some cases, these measures may not be adequate due to the presence of irreplaceable flora or physical habitat features. G-14 10 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT FRESHWATER MARSH HABITAT (Areas 6, 7, 9) Objective: No loss of exiting resource value. Recommended Action: Prepare freshwater marsh preservation and management plan to identify/delineate extent of existing habitat and -provide specific guidelines to preserve in place as permanent open space. . Preparation of the plan should include consultation with DFG through required notification process (Sections 1601-1606, California Fish and Game Code) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit process (Section 404, Clean Water Act), if applicable, to determine additional protective actions, such as: o Setbacks and edge screening of adjacent development to allow continued use of entire habitat available by wildlife; o The use of fencing and other means of controlling access and disturbance to maintain values; o Diversions or control of increased flood runoff from adjacent and upstream urban developments to prevent the scouring of bottom and bank vegetation; o Maintenance of existing water supply for the continued support of habitats. Note: In some cases, these measures may not be adequate due to the presence of irreplaceable flora or physical habitat features. 11 OPEN WATER/SHORELINE WITH REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE AS WATERFOWL HABITAT (Areas 6, 10, 27) Objective: No --net loss of in -kind resource value (while minimizing loss of exiting resource values). Recommended Action: Prepare open water/shoreline habitat preservation and management plan to identify/delineate extent of existing habitat and provide specific guidelines to preserve in place as permanent open space. Preparation of the plan should include consultation with DFG through required • notification process (Sections 1601-1606, California Fish and Game Code) and the U.S. G-15 • Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to .the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permit process (Section 404, Clean Water Act), if applicable, to determine additional protective actions, such as: o Setbacks and edge screening of adjacent development to allow continued use of entire habitat available by wildlife; o The use - of fencing and other, means of controlling access and disturbance to maintain values; o Diversions or control of increased flood runoff from adjacent and upstream urban developments to prevent the scouring of bottom and bank vegetation; o. Maintenance of existing water supply for -the continued support of habitats. Note: In some cases, these measures may not be adequate due to the presence of irreplaceable flora or physical habitat features. While open water habitats are fairly easy to accomplish, even within urban areas, they are- seldom of high value to most wildlife due .to high intensity human use and manicured shorelines which preclude their use by many sensitive species. To be effective, enhanced or restored habitats should be primarily intended for wildlife, and any secondary uses should be consistent with this objective. 12 PRIME BIRD OF PREY FORAGING/WINTERING AREA (Areas 1, 13,14) Objective: No net loss of in -kind resource value (while minimizing loss of existing resource value). Recommended Action: Preserve large blocks of grassland - (20 acres and greater). and open brushland foraging area (50 ,percent of the site at ' a, minimum) as, permanent open space. To achieve the maximum value, this area should be contiguous and -not broken up by roads or scattered dwellings; therefore, clustering of development with interspersed open space of. -the type described above is preferred. Where prime nesting/roosting sites are also present, these areas should include the spatial buffer zone recommended for that resource (see # 13,. below). Artificial clearing of areas to create forage may be used as part of this action, providing revegetation with grasses and low, open brush species is accomplished immediately following clearing activities. G-16 13 PRIME BIlZD OF PREY NESTING/ROOSTING AREAS. (Areas 1. CO. 14) Objective: No loss of existing resource value. Recommended Action: Identify/delineate prime oak/riparian woodland and cliff nesting and roostings sites and preserve as permanent open space. In conjunction with-- # 12 above, establish a spatial buffer/feeding zone for a distance of 1/2 . mile around nesting/roostings- sites, and preserve as permanent open space. If necessary, clear portions of this area, especially in canyon bottoms, of dense brush to maximize its value as forage for birds of prey (this could be done as part of fuel modification -procedures.). Use buffer zone edge treatments to discourage or prohibit access to nesting- and roosting areas. Methods up to and including fencing should be considered; natural. barriers, such as rugged terrain and dense vegetation should also be taken into account. A qualified biologist or DFG should be consulted if necessary on a site 5pectBc basis. Note: Mitigative actions for this resource should be consistent/complimentary with the action exercised for resource # 12, if also present. 14 MAJOR WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDOR (Areas 1, 4, 5, 13, 14) Objective: Not net loss of in -kind resource value (while minimizing loss of -existing resource value). Recommended Action: Preserve vegetation along contiguous corridor in canyon bottoms. Corridor should generally - . conform to native vegetation existing along drainages, including riparian habitat, oak woodland and dense brush. Minimum width should be 300 feet, unless existing vegetation is narrower, in which case additional buffer areas should be provided in the form of bordering greenbelt/recreation open space, areas. Fencing or otherwise controlling access is not necessary, however, there should be no extensive clearing of vegetation within the corridor. If clearing is required for road crossings fire safety clearance, etc., landscape materials,. should be introduced for screening and/or widening the corridor to retain the corridor's original value. 15 WOODLAND/BRUSHLAND/GRASSLAND ECOTONE (Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14) Objective: No loss of existing resource value within. "core" oak/riparian woodland areas while minimizing/limiting loss of remaining existing resource value. G-17 Recommended Action: Preserve 60 percent of brushland and grassland habitats, according to the following guidelines: o Retain in large (20 acres minimum), contiguous habitat configurations. o Retain corridors/links of native vegetation between habitat enclaves. o Include oak/riparian buffer zones as a portion of area preserved: o Place lowest intensities of use, greenbelts,, recreation open space - adjacent to preservation areas. G-18 • all REFERENCES California Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Gave, California Fish and Game Code, 1977. California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, California Endangered Species Act of 1970, 1970. California Resources -Agency Department of Fish and Game, California Fish and_ Wildlife Plan; 1966. City of Irvine, Environmental Review Matrix, City of Irvine; 1983 City of Irvine; Hillside Development Manual, City of Irvine, "1977. City of Irvine,.General Plan Conservation and Open Space�Element, City of Irvine, 1985. City -of Irvine, Resolution 1036, Eucalyptus Windrow Preservation Policy, City of Irvine, 1981. EDAW, Inc., Master Environmental Assessment County of Orange: Phase I Constraints Mapping and Analysis. Prepared for the County of Orange, Environmental Agency, 1980. LSA, Inc./Van Dell & Associates, Master Environmental Assessment County of Orange: Phase II Mitigation Measures. Prepared for the County of .Orange, Environmental Agency, 1982: U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy. Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 15, 1981. U.S Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act of 1977, 1977. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 1973. G-19 .41 C� U.S Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act of 1977, 1977. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 1971 G-20 Ll to APPENDIX G-I SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS PERTAINING TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES GOAL L: Maintain the natural environment as a major element in the ,development -of the City. Objective L-1: Maintain designated natural areas in their undeveloped state. Implementing Actions: a. 'Natural. vegetation should be maintained in areas where significant stands can be identified. Particular attention shall be given to bottom canyon tree stands of California Live Oak, Emeroy Oak, Scrub Oak, Sycamore, and Holly. b. Windrows should remain an integral part of the open space system. C. Landscape plantings should complement or enhance the native material and be _ continuously maintained. d. Use native trees,. shrubs, and grasses with low maintenance costs. e. Prohibit development and- intensive human use in areas which sustain rare or endangered species, including migratory bird species and rare plant species: f. Where possible and practicable, the appearance and ecology of certain existing natural channels shall be studied to determine ' which channels, or portions thereof, conservation measures shall be applied. Channels, or portions of channels, delineated for preservation in the future shall not be altered in. any way except for general maintenance to preserve.their natural amenities. g. Require the maintenance of existing natural water sources in the design of surrounding development. G-I-1 r. Building development should be located on sites which minimize- the need for grading partly moving or the removal of native plant material (except -for fire trails). S. Any access roads or highways ' that must pass through hillside areas are to be designed so as to not damage their ecological and/or aesthetic characters. Objective L-2: Develop a program of preservation, enhancement for educational or recreational purposes, or development restraint of designated wildlife habitat. Implementing Actions: a. Preserve the San Joaquin Marsh in its existing condition, and allow development to occur only as an. enhancement for its, role. as an environmental education and research center. Study the possibility of increasing the size of the existing wildlife preserve. Areas adjacent to the existing preserve located on either side of Campus Drive may be appropriate to, be designated wildlife preserve if the proposed study warrants such action. b. Promote the designation of the area of the Santiago- Hills as the "Sinks" as a regional wildlife preserve. C. No development will be allowed except that designed to enhance the habitat in designated wildlife habitat areas. d. Inclusion areas shown in Figure L-1 (of the Conservation and Open Space Element) will be preserved with no development except for hiking and equestrian trails. e. Development that occurs at the edge of -the inclusion areas will be designed in such a manner as not to substantially alter the drainage pattern of surface water runoff into the primary habitat area. f. Areas designated for primary preservation in Figure L-I (of the Conservation and Open Space Element) will be maintained without change from their existing condition and development adjacent to these areas will be of the lowest density possible. g. Areas designated for enhancement for recreational and educational purposes will • be more carefully analyzed and a plan for their development and use established G-I-2 41 for each area. Priority uses should be for environmental education areas, to be used in conjunction with other community education 'and information programs. h. Areas designated for preservation of wildlife habitat should be primarily managed for their wildlife and open space values with recreation and park uses clearly a subordinate and secondary activity. The use of hiking and equestrian trails should constantly be monitored for their impact and viability as a compatible use with wildlife habitat. G-I-3 • APPENDIX G-II SUMMARY OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT MANUAL POLICIES RELATING TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES' 1C. No development shall be -permitted within the main habitat portions of designated wildlife habitats as defined by the City's General Plan. - 1D. Development shall preserve existing areas of vegetation identified as significant at the. Planned Community Zoning level. Additionally, development shall attempt to preserve other existing trees, riparian vegetation, native plant communities and significant rock outcroppings within the context of the development plan. 1E. Development should be set back a minimum of 50' feet from existing lakes, reservoirs and significant natural drainage courses identified at the Planned Community zoning level, unless it is demonstrated that the environmental function of the water- feature is not impaired and that -public access is not restricted. 3A. Development shall attempt to preserve and protect existing trees, riparian vegetation and native plant communities within the context of the development plan. 3B. New landscape materials introduced as transition plantings shall be used to integrate the man-made and natural environments, to screen and soften the visual impact of development- and to- provide privacy within existing adjacent development. Landscape materials shall also provide diversity within the developed areas. The City's "Plant Selection Guide"' shall be used in -considering the appropriate plant materials. Temporary orpermanent irrigation systems will be required only where necessary to sustain the plant materials selected. 3E. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for approval in accordance with the provisions of the Hillside Development Overlay District. 4A. Areas adjacent to creeks and natural drainage swales shall- be kept as much as practical in their natural state, consistent with the need to minimize flood and erosion hazards. Adequate setbacks for development area, preferred alternative to stream channelization in hillside areas. Open greenbelt swales are a preferred alternative to undergrounding or open concrete lined channels. G-II-1 • 4B. Where channelization projects are found necessary., they should be part.of a larger open space system, be landscaped to blend with the surroundings, and .include trails. and linear parks along their banks as part of the overall open space -system. SA. Access to special, endangered, rare or fragile plant -and animal habitats shall be limited, with public access carefully managed. to prevent disruption of the area's natural -values. G-H-2 0 APPENDIX G-III EUCALYPTUS WINDROW PRESERVATION POLICY a 0 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 81-7' A RESOLtTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE RESCINDING AND SUPERSED= RESOLUTION 1036 ADO&`S1NG A E[K'ALYPTUS WIMROW PRESERVATION POLICY. MOMS,, the City of Irvine has- deemed trees to be an integral part of the-City's fabric; and WHEREAS,- soon after incorporation ordinances governing tree removal were adopted; and . WHEREAS, the City has recognized the significance of eucalyptus windrows as cctmxmity design assets, and WHEREAS, the City has required detailed eucalyptus tree reports prior to development in areas containing windrows; and , WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Irvine has appointed a Eucalyptus Windrow Preservation C=mittee; and WFUMAS, the Planning Commission has. requested staff to, examine . the possibility of a more definitive policy on eucalyptus tree pre- servation and removal in the City; and WE LAMAS, staff has made such analysis; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that a new eucalyptus windrow policy designated as Exhibit A and attached hereto as a part of this - Resolution be adopted; and WHEREAS, -the Eucalyptus Windrow Preservation Committee has re- viewed the staff -analysis and reccmrendations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Resolution 1036 is hereby rescinded and superseded by this Resolution 81-7. 2. That the City Council of the City of Irvine hereby does adopt the eucalyptus windrow preservation policy designated as Exhibit A. Resolution No. 81-7 EXHIBIT A EUCALYPTUS WINDROW POLICY I. PURPOSE AND IN= A. Eucalyptus windrows are a -unique -inheritance. It has been the objective of the City to maintain eucalyptus windrows'as an integral part of co mnuv ty design in Irvine. This intent has been carried 'out through. the policies. and standards established for existing eucalyptus tree maintenance, preservationv re oval and replacement. The maintenance of eucalyptus trees shall be in conformance with accepted arborical standards and in accordance with budgetary authorization. B. Maintenance techniques for eucalyptus windrows in agricultural operations are exempt from the provisions of the adopted City Council policy due to the unique nature and function of the windrows in the protection of agricultural crops., However, the removal, of these trees shall -be in conformance -with Ordinance No. 67, which provides policies for the preservation of trees on private and public property. II. PRESERVATION AND RE4=1, PROCEDURE A-. All existing eucalyptus trees shall be accurately surveyed and plotted on subdivision maps and/or site plans. B.. All applications for tree removal permits shall include the filing -of an envircr w*al application and environmental•clearance prior to permit approval in accordance with the City's CEUA procedures: - C. If the developer proposes to remove any -eucalyptus trees within the area of his development, an analysis of their.preservation or re- moval including environmental clearance shall be determined at the' subdivision map and/or site plan review, process. The Director of Ccmrmnunity Development shall request the Tree Cmmittee to examine eucalyptus trees and make re=mnendations regarding preservation or -removal. These reccan*mdations shall be taken into consideration, by the staff and be incorporated in the staff- analysis.. These analyses shall be referred. to the Planning_Commission for their approval Variance regarding preservation. or. re oval mayybe granted by the Planning -Commission for the following cases: 1. That removal of eucalyptus trees will significantly improve the utilization of the property and the developer has provided satisfactory alternate landscaping. 2. That removal of eucalyptus trees will be for public benefits such as but not limited to traffic or pedestrian safety, utilities, drainage, walkways, recreation and other visual amenities. 3. That "dead, dying and/or beyond repair" or infestation by pests, infection by fungi and/or bacterial disease are given as reason(s)-for the need to remove a eucalyptus tree, documentation Resolution No. 81-7 • of such conditions shall be provided to the Tree Cotmittee for review.. and verification prior to permit approval. In addition, evidence must be provided that the condition of a tree is incurable. D. All approved tree removals, trenching, pruning, and other maintenance functions, shall be completed prior to grading. in a windrow easement. E. Tree removal shall include the entire tree unless the Tree;Comtittee's evaluation shows a reason to leave the stump. F.. Eucalyptus tress that are approved for preservation at the subdiv- ision arxi/or site plan review stage will require 'a tree reoval permit for any individual tree removals. Such permit shall. be issued .by the Director of Cam=dty Development upon receipt of recammendation by the Tree Ccmmmittee. III. MAINTENANCE.PROCURE A. Eucalyptus windrows shall be maintained in a manner that is L cammpatible with motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and adjacent structures pro- vided initial planning was in line with principles of tree preservation.. B. All. property owners shall be required to ,properly irrigate eucalyptus windrows on a continuous basis with particular attention being paid to the transition period.of•land develcpnent,between agricultural use and development for nonagricultural purposes'. .Property owners. shall insure that the trees stay in a good biological and aesthetic condition. The irrigation system shall be compatible with the surrounding area. The permanent irrigation systems shall be in accordance with the city Is landscaping design policies. C. All trees shall be selectively pruned to improve shape, and health. Hazardous branches, weak limbs and questionable double trunks shall be removed. The pruning shall be carried out with consideration given to the potential for future growth. D. Developers shall be required to irrigate, prune, treat, and maintain existing trees and plant new ones .in such a way that -when the eucalyptus windrows becamme City, association, 'or private' property the eucalyptus trees will be in good biological condition upon acceptance. If necessary* as determined by the -City Arborist,, trees must be treated by surgery and/or with fertilizers, and other,chemicals. Such treatments shall be carried out by the developers with inspections by the City Arborist prior to final acceptance. E. Prior to the start of pruning, a sample selection of trees shall be pruned by the developer. These sample trees shall be subject to inspection by the City Arborist to insure adherence to recommended arboriculture practices. Resolution No. 8L-7 II � 0 a • F. Pruning, prior to transfer of windrows to the City,'must be done by developers -under specifications and inspection by the City Arborist. 1. Remove dead or dying trees, stumps, and limbs or multiple trunks. 2. Remove unsightly or poorly crotched limbs. 3. Thin out unsightly or interlacing growth. 4. Cut back out -of -scale limbs to bring tree into balance. 5. Cut back heavily. (pollard) where necessary to avoid hazard. 6. Remove heavily leaning branches. 7. All cuts are to be made flush aria/or.in line with proper arboricultural practices. 8. Remove sucker growth to a height of 101. G. Soil preparation for replanting prior to transfer of -the trees to City, association, or private owner must be done by developers under specifications of and inspection' by -_the City Arborist. H. Prior to final acceptance of any windrow by the City", the Tree . Committee shall" conduct a finial examination of the eucalyptus trees to evaluate the developer's compliance with the City's maintenance, pruning and trimming policies. I. Prior to any site development, the developer shall be responsible for fencing the eucalyptus windrow maintenance easement (20 feet " on each side of the centerline of the windrow) to insure that the easement is not utilized for storage and/or dumping purposes and, also to protect the tree roots from damage due to construction. J. -Whenever development results. in eucalyptus tree roots being . exposed, the developer will be required to take corrective measures under supervision and inspection by City Arborist. K. Pruning and all other maintenance of trees shall .be -under the supervision and approval of the City Arborist upon the.Tree. Comittee's recommendation. The City Arborist shall require the developer to submit the names of those who perform the task and proof of their qualification. L. At the earliest possible stage of the development review process, i.e., zone change, subdivision maps and/or site plans, approvals for those areas including eucalyptus windrows designated for preservation shall be conditioned with a note requiring irrigation of eucalyptus trees on "a continuous basis during the review process and development. Developers shall install and maintain these irrigation systems, subject to City supervision and -inspection. Resolution No. 81-7 G-IIL 4 • a • Iv: DESIGbT/KUNTMQV= STANDARDS A. Trees shall be topped to the following guidelines unless alternate requirements are approved by the City Arborist upon the Tree Cannittee's recommendation. Where the height .of a tree exceeds the distance between the tree trunk and an adjacent structure, such tree shall be -topped to a height no greater than the distance to the closest structure or 40' whichever is greater. In no instance -may a tree exceed 70' in height unless alternate requirements are approved by the City Arborist. B. Trees which, with the approval of the City Arborist, will remain over 70' shall require'selectivepruning of excessive growth to reasonably insure health, safety and welfare of the trees and the public. C. Trees .pruned to approximately 40' will require close monitor- ing and removal of excessive side growth. Pruning thereafter shall be as necessary -to insure .the health, -safety and welfare of the trees and the public. D. In all locations, a mini.man area of 20' on each side of the centerline of the windrows shall be left as an easement for .maintenance unless adequate easement has been provided subject to the approval of the Planning Catmission. This open area - can serve the following purposes: J.. Safety, i.e. prevent branches fran falling on adjacent structures or people. 2. Access for maintenance crews which will remove hazardous branches and keep the trees,in good health and aesthetic' form. 3. Local park land dedication, if approved by.the Planning Caimi:ssion, to accannodate passive recreation activities or serve as a linear connection for bike and -pedestrian paths linking the residential neighborhoods,to larger parks. E. The -location of the eucalyptus windrow maintenance easement and the identification of those responsible for maintenance of same shall be designated on the subdivision map and it shall be checked and verified for ccmpliance at the time of site plan review. F. The curb -cut access to the maintenance easements shall be shown on subdivision maps, and cross sections shall, be' provided to show acceptable.finished grade relationships between the maintenance easement and access entry points to insure accessibility to windrows during maintenance. These maps shall be reviewed by the C=munIty Development Department to assure a proper grading plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Resolution No. 81-7 G-III-5 G. In all eucalptus windrow maintenance easements-, disruption of the root system will not be permitted within 8' from the centerline of the windrow. In no case shall trenching other than for windrow irrigation systems be permitted within this 8" area. Digging of trenches -and other operations which may damage eucalyptus tree roots in the windrow maintenance easement will require an encroachment permit and wi.11'be under:City supervision and inspection. H. In all eucaiyptus-windrow maintenance -easements, no paving other than pedestrian'and bicycle trails shall be closer than 15' fram the centerline of the windrow. Where grading is necessary, dis- ruption shall not be closer than 8-' from the .centerline of the windrow and such grading will require the -prior approval of the Director of Cam unity Development upon receipt of rec^crtmendata on. by the Tree Committee. I. Root pruning may be allowed only if the need for it has been clearly demonstrated. Should it be necessary, root pruning will -be carried -out at a_ distance between 8'_ and 15' fram the centerline of the windrow and at a depth of 4' to 5'. Reduction of foliage area must precede root pruning. J. All replacement trees are to be of a desirable species from a list, Of selected eucalyptus trees (see Page 7 of this Resolution). Any further amendments shall be approved by the Director of C mmnity Development. As a guideline, replanting. shall be on approximately 20' centers and replacement trees shall. be no greater than one gallon -container size.- The.planting holes shall not be dug with an auger..` Earth basins must 'be constructed around replacement trees and shall be irrigated as necessary untiY they -have became campetitive with adjoiningplants (the property owners will be, responsible up to a period of one year). K. As a guideline, the distance between remaining trees in the windrows shall be 15' to,20-'. However, tin no case should healthy trees be removed merely to insure -such spacing.. if the distance between -trees in a windrow exceed 30', new trees of a desirable species shall be planted by-develcper-in accordance with the guidelines to fill the voids.-_ L. Staking of any eucalyptus trees, replacement trees or off- shoots is not recommended. M. Any proposed ground cover or shrub planting under eucalyptus trees shall be reviewed by the City Arborist to insure carpatibility with the eucalyptus trees. N. Eucalyptus trees standing upon private -property or property held in common by an association shall'be-maintained by the owner in conformance with the standards and policies for City trees. Modification may be allowed'by the Tree Committee only where it *is shown that it is, not physically or econcmi- cally practical to comply with said policies. Resolution No. 81-7 G-III-6 V. ADMIIVIST'RATION A. The Superintendent designee shall act responsibility for maintenance: - of Park Maintenance or a qualified as City Arborist and will have supervision and inspection for tree B.. Eucalyptus tree- removal permits, environmental documents and design/maintenance standards shall be reviewed and approved ' by the Director of Camimmiarmi:ty Development . C. The -Tree Commmittee will .review all proposed removals and pruning of windrow trees at the subdivision and/or site plan review process and shall. make-rec=memdations regarding tree preservation or removal, and pruning. D. Persons or organization who prepare environmental docu- ments. or deal with the tree removal,_ pruning, treatment, or maintenance shall be required,to present evidence of expertise and experience in working with trees.* This shall include educational background related to ecology, horticulture, arboriculture, biology, agriculture and landscaping and experience in the area of tree maintenance and trinming. In cases where persons may have experience only, they must prove to the satisfaction of the City Arborist that their experience is acceptable. W. ENMRCEMENT The provision of Chapter 19,.Section II.-M-1905 of the Code -of Ordinances, City of Irvine, shall apply to all cases of willful or unintentional disregard of the adopted. city policies and standards pertaining to tree maintenance, removal and replacements. Resolution No. 81-7 G-M-7 ELr.AL=S WINDROWS TREE REPL-ACEMENr LIST Tree Species Heights .Eucalyptus maculata Max. 150' in Australia -(spotted gun)- 50' = 60' in Irvine -Eucalyptus sideroxylon Max. 40' in Australia Rosea (Red iron bark) Max. 40' in Irvine Eucalyptus rudis Max. 100' in Australia (Desert gum) 50' - 60' in Irvine Eucalyptus polyanthemos Max. 150" in Australia (red box) (silver dollar 50' - 60' in Irvine gLm) a is Resolution No. 51-7 Characteristics The bark is deciduous in patches. The bark is persistent and flowers are rose color. Rough gray, persistent bark. -The hark is persistent leaves are green and round (different than others). LJ a • PASSED AMID ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of.Irvine at a regular meting held on the 27th day of Jamo y, 1981• , ' IN L.G MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MOE ATTEST: CITY ffl;ERK OF THE CITY OF IRVINE STATE OF CALSFORNIA) _ CtiLaTTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF IRVINE - ) I, NA= C.- FMAND, City Clerk of the City of Irvine, HERESY Y. DO CERMthat the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meet; M of the City Council of the City of Irvine, held on. the 27th day of January, 1981, by the following vote: AYES:. 5 : Agran, GaI Sills. Vardoulis, ar4 Anti=fty NOW: 0 : None ABSENT: 0 CO : None Resolution Db. 81.-7 G-III-9 • APPENDIX H GLOSSARY is • • • GLOSSARY Association - A group of species occurring in the same place. Biota - Fauna and flora together-. Carrying Capacity - Number of individuals that the.resources of a habitat can support. Community - An association of interacting. populations, usually delimited by their interactions or by spatial occurrence. Competition - Use or defense of a resource by one individual that reduces the availability of that resource to other individuals. Dispersal - Movement of organisms away from the place of birth or from centers of population density. Dispersion = Pattern of spacing of individuals in a population. Diversity - A measure of the variety of species in a community that takes into account the relative abundance of each species. Ecotone -- A habitat created by the juxtaposition of distinctly different- habitats;_ an edge habitat. Environment - Surroundings of an organism, including the plants and animals with which it interacts. Food chain - An abstract representation .of the passage of energy through populations in the community. Gene flow - Exchange of genetic traits between populations by movement of individuals, gametes, or spores. : Habitat - Place where an animal or plant. normally lives, often characterized by a dominant plant form or physical characteristic (i.e., the stream habitat, the forest habitat). Habitat selection - Preference for certain habitats. _ Heterogeneity - The variety of qualities found in an environment (habitat patches) or population (genotypic variation). Life form -Characteristic structure of a plant or animal. H - 1 Microhabitat - The particular parts of the habitat that an individual encounters in the course of its activities. Niche - All the components of the environment with which the organism or population interacts. Productivity - Rate at which energy or nutrients are assimilated by an organism, a - population, or an entire community. Range - An area, from which, intruders may or, may not be excluded, to which an individual restricts most of its normal activities (see territory). -Relative abundance - Proportional representation of a species in a. sample or a community. Riparian = Along the bank of a river or lake. Specialization - Restriction of an organism's .or a,population's activities to a portion -of, the environment; a-, trait that enables an organism (or -one of tis organs) to modify (or differentiate) in order to adapt to a particular function or environment. Stability.- Inherent capacity of any system to resist change. Subspecies - Subpopulations within a species that are' distinguishable by morphological characteristics and, sometimes, by physiological or behavioral characteristics. Territory - Any area defended by one or more individuals against intrusion by others of the same or different species. H-2 A ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES S ELEMENT 0 Technical Supplement 3 • Lsa ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PREPARED FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING SERVICES AS A TECHNICAL COMPONENT OF THE IRVINE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. PREPARED BY BETK PADON PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR BILL BREECE FIELD DIRECTOR. CULTURAL RESOURCE DIVISION LSA 610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 555 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714).640=6363 0 DUNE 1985 • ii Lso TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................. 1 PERSONNEL.....:........................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ...............: ........................ *so ...... 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW` .................................................... 5 Regional Cultural History ................ ...... :.................. 0... 5 Ethnographic Background .... ............................................ 9 METHODOLOGY...................................:.......................0...... 10 Archival' Research ...........:......................................... 10 Background......................................................... . 26 Previous Surveys and Reports ...................:...................... 27 Field Methods ............. Special Problems ...:.... ..... .... .................................... 28 FIELD.SURVEY RESULTS........................................................ 29 CA-Ora-1069.................... :.... .................................. 0 29 CA-Ora-1070........................................................... 30 CA-Ora-1071............................................ :.............. 30 Isolated Artifacts .......................................:....:...... 30 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ............................. 32 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..: ........................................ 35 REFERENCES ............................................................... 37 APPENDICES Appendix A - Applicable Federal and State Laws for Archaeological Resources Appendix B - Resumes Appendix C - Index to Base Map of Surveyed Areas 9 • iii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Im Figure 1 - Regional Location ...................... .......... ....... .., 2 __ TABLES Table A - Archaeological Sites Within the Ci-ty of Irvine and Its Sphere of Influence ......... .... ......... ............. ... 11 s • ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE INVENTORY CITY OF IRVINE AN ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE INTRODUCTION The following report presents the findings and results .of an archaeolog- ical resource survey and records check of the previously unsurveyed portions of. the City of Irvine and its sphere of influence (.Figure 1). The_ project lies within central Orange County and extends from the central ridge of the San Joaquin Hills inland to the central ridge of the Lomas de Santia-go. The study, area included the entire area, under the jursidiction of _ the City of Irvine and its sphere of influence, while the surveyed area included those portions not previously systemati'call;y, surveyed.- This study provides an inventory of the known archaeological resources and surveys conducted within the City and -its sphere of influence. This report provides an important plan- ning tool for the City of Irvine•, providing the City with a comprehensive data base of existing, archaeological resources to assist in future development plans for the city. This report follows guidelines established by the California State His- toric Preservation Office, the Society for California Archaeology (Ki-ng, Moratto, and Leonard 1973), the Society for American Archaeology (McGimsey and Davis 1977), and the City's Environmental' Review Matrix: Guidelines for Archaeological Reports. The body of this study follows a brief physical description of the pro- ject area. It contains four sections: Archaeological Overview, Methodology, Summary of Results and Findings, and Recommendations. Due to their .size, index maps complied during the archival and field -work phase of this project are provided under separate cover. The Archaeological Overview section serves to provide the context for discussing, archaeological resources_ encountered. The Methodology section describes how these resources were identi feed and how the field reconnaissance was conducted. Data summaries and descriptions of the archaeological sites newly recorded characterize the section Results and Findings. Recommendations for continued research.to complement this inventory make up the final section. The applicable Federal and State laws for archaeo- logical.resources are contained in Appendix A. PERSONNEL Beth Padon, a certified Orange County Archaeologist and member of The Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA), served as Principal Investiga- tor for this study. Ms. Padon has served as principal investigator for a • 6 0 2 Regional Location. Lsa Los Angeles Co. 91 m AnaheN.c Garde San Bernardino Co: Yorba Linda Riverside Co. S Cleveland National Forest 18 4 ,/ San Diego Co. • M Lsa number of archaeological. surveys throughout Southern California. Mr.. Bill Breece, also a certified Orange County Archaeologist and SOPA member, served as Project Archaeologist. Cole Parker and Tony, Sawyer served as the primary field assistants, while Wayne Bonner and Jody Neal -Post assisted in the final days of the survey. Marian Parks served as 'research assistant for the proj- ect. Resumes are -provided in Appendix B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA The project area includes three prominent Orange County geographical fea- tures: the Tustin Plain, the San Joaquin Hills, and the Lomas de Santiago. It lies w-ithin the coastal and foothill zone of Central Orange County.- The Lomas de Santiago, which form the northern portion of the project area, contain a series of moderately -steep canyons and narrow ridges. From northwest to southeast, these canyons are the Little Joaquin, Rattlesnake, Hicks,, Bee, Round,''and Agua Chinon. The flat, open Tustin Plain covers about two-thirds of the study area. The San. Joaquin Hills mark the southern portion - of the study area. These hills slope moderately and feature open, broad valleys such as Sand, Bommer, Shady, Bonita, and Coyote Canyons. San Diego Creek, which flows east/west through- the -study area along the. inland side of the .San Joaquin Hills, remains the major stream in the study area... The Irvine Company continues. to farm the majority of the study area, however, residential and commercial developments dot the project area. The University of California at Irvine covers several hundred acres in the proj- ect's southwest corner. Both the I-405 and I-5 freeways .cross the project site -from northwest to southeast. The majority of the study area is situated on the E1 Toro and.Tustin USGS 7.5' quadrangles with small portions located on Orange, Black Star Canyon, and Laguna Beach USGS 7..5" quadrangles. Open grasslands characterize rural areas of the San Joaquin Hills. Vege tation here varies from introduced grasses and grains to isolated areas of native chapparal and oak woodland. Crop cultivation dominates the. Tustin Plain. Rows of eucalyptus trees mark the boundaries of several fields. Even though' areas of dense chaparral exist within the Lomas de Santiago, orchards, reservoirs, and sand -and -gravel operations have reduced native vege- tation within this area. In its natural state, the majority of the study area would have consisted of three major biotic communities: riparian/oak woodland, chaparral/coastal sage scrub, and southern (valley) grassland. A fresh -water marsh and a salt- water marsh community lies within the project area. These types of biotic communities offered several potential food and raw material resources for the prehistoric population of the area: K. Dixon ha.s classified six basic L] 4 Lsa biological habitats for the general area of Orange County -which ai.d in deter- mining available natural resources for an area (Dixon 1974). His model suggests several resources for these. habitats, as described in the following - paragraphs. Coastal sage scrub is found on steep, dry, rocky or gravelly slopes and in narrow canyons, generally below 1,500, feet. It is less dense'than-chapar- ral habitat. It consists of dry -type vegetation such as white sage (Salvia apia�na), sagebrush (Artemisia californi.ca), cactus (0 unta occidenta is , wheat (Erin onum ascciculatum),and sumac -(Rhus laurina) z and Keck 1959). Native Americans uti ized many of these plants. For example, the leaves of California sagebrush were used for medicinal purposes. The ground seeds of white sage were used -to make meal; the leaves were used as a food, as. a purification agent, as a hair dye, and as a deodorant. The leaves of buck- wheat were brewed for a medicinal drink while the flowers, when steeped, were used as an eyewash (Curtis 1959'; Bean and Saubel 1972). Riparian habitat, found along drainages with a year-round water source, consists of trees and shrubs. This habitat includes coast live oak (Quercus a rifolia), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), mulefat (Baccharis lutino= sa), and willow (Salix spp.) (Munz anT Keck 195The aboriginal popu ations extensively used tTe- several species of oak -- coast live oak, scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), and interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii) -- as sources of- acornsfor food (Bean and Saubel 1972; Spar man 908). Southern rassland habitat was previously located on dry hills, on lower mountain slopes, and in inland valleys. The various. bunch grasses (Stipa spp.) originally grew as the dominant plant of this community. E1de.rberry (Sambucus mexicana) and prickly pear (Opunta littoralis) also occasionally occur in this habitat. However, since European contact, introduced grasses and annual species prevail. Today, wild oat Uvena spp.), filaree (Erodium sp.p.), and mustard (Brassica spp.) commonly grow as part of this habitat. The native populations- found the grass seeds edible by grinding them into meal, and the berries of the elderberry also edible when dried and cooked as a sauce (Curtis 1959:142). Freshwater marsh, found in river -bottom lagoons and bays along the coast and behind salty areas (Munz and Keck 1959) is abundant' in small animals and birds. It is filled with plants that are useful to prehistoric populations, including cattails (Typha spp.), rushes (Heleocharis palustris), sedges, and willows (Salix hinasiana) that could be used to manufacture baskets and mats, construct ewe l ings, and as a food source (Dixon 1974). • 5 Saltwater marsh is'located mainly in the tidal environments or sand flats that range up to ten feet in elevation (Munz and. -Keck. 1959). Dominated by plants and adapted to high soil salinity, the saltwater marsh/estuary also offers a rich source of protein in the form of shellfish, especially scallops (Pecten), clams (Chione), and oysters. Seasonal migration of waterfowl would have provided a temporary abundance of food in the form of marsh -dwelling birds and bird eggs. Rodents, reptiles, sharks and rays, and bay fish would also have been available year-round. Although it may be assumed that the remaining natural vegetation within the study 'area generally represents the prehistoric flora of the region, intensive livestock grazing, dry -farm disking, cultivation, diminishing water table levels, residential development, and the suppression -of wildfires over the last 150 years have significantly altered the biological environment. The Irvine Company maintains hundreds of acres of orchards (citrus and avocados) within the study area. Much- of the study area southeast of the Lomas de San- tiago ridge is within these Irvine Company orchards. Livestock activities, sand and gravel operations, commercial nurseries, and roadways.dot the study area north of the E1 Toro and Mission Viejo communities. ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW Regional.Cultural History The following cultural history outline briefly describes known pre -Euro- pean cultural development in the Southern California coastal region. I-n gen- eral, this region is represented by cultural developments that persist over a long period of time and exhibit notable stability when compared to other * cul- tures in North America. This stability makes it difficult to accurately define cultural changes through time. Without distinct cultural changes, only a general cultural history can be used to provide a chronological framework for the Southern California coastal cultures. Effective exploitation of coastal and foothill environs is viewed as one explanation for the persistence of this cultural pattern, which is reflected in the archaeological record as an increase im local population size and a more sedentary form of settlement. Most archaeologists divide the general prehistory of this region into a four -stage chronology based upon changes in artifact assemblages and ecologi- cal adaptation. The two most widely referenced cultural frameworks are those proposed by 14. Wallace (1955) and C. Warren (1968),. With both of these broad chronologies, the authors cover the non -desert areas of Santa Barbara, Ven- tura, Los Angeles, and San Diego Counties. • 1.1 W. Wallace (1955) defines four cultural horizons for the coastal area: Horizon I Early Man Prior to 5500 B.C. Horizon II Millingstone 5500 to 1000 B.C. Horizon III Intermediate cultures 1000 B.C. to 1000 A.D. Horizon IV Late Prehistoric cultures 1000 A.D. to 1800 A.D. C. Warren in 1968 outlined a different regional synthesis which utilizes. the concepts of cultural ecology to explain cultural changes. He defined his traditions as: San Dieguito Prior to 6000 B.C. Encinitas 5500 B.C. to 1 A.D. Campbell 1 A.D. to 500 A.D. (for San Diego County) Chumash, Shoshonean, Yuman 500 A.D. to European contact The Early Man Horizon covers the Late Pleistocene to post -glacial period. This period remains best documented in San Diego County; ,however, the skeleton known as the Laguna Woman, found in Orange County on the coast, falls within this horizon. The Laguna Woman dates by- radiocarbon calibration- to 16,670 B.C. or at least older than 12,850 B.C: (UCLA-1233A: 17,150 + 1,470 B.P.; UCLA-1233B: 14,800 B.P. [Schroth 19791). In Los Angeles County, the human bones found at the La Brea tar pits and the Los Angeles -Man bones found along Ballona Creek also represent this period. The UCLA radiocarbon lab dated -the Los Angeles Man to 23,600 years ago .and the La Brea skeleton to 9,000 + 80 years ago (Stickel 1978).. In San Diego County, three sites have yi-el.ded skel- etal as well as artifactual material which dates to this early period. These sites are the"Texas Street Site (Carter 1957), the Del Mar skeleton (Rogers 1974), and the Harris Site (Rogers 1929; Warren et al. 1961). Diagnostic artifacts from San Diego sites of the period include numerous large projectile points, scrapers, crescentics, and hammerstones. Groundstone implements are lacking for this period. Archaeologists interpret this absence of groundstone to imply that the Early Man people emphasized hunting in their subsistence strategy rather than the gathering and processing of plant materials. Warren's San Dieguito Tradition parallels Wallace's Early Man Horizon. However, Warren focused his description of this period on the San Diego sites. He noted several different scraper tools, leaf -shaped knives, some hammer - stones, and a few crescentics for this period. He also infers that the San Di egui,to Tradition was a hunting, culture, since he found no manos or metate-s at these sites. • In Orange County, the crescentics found at the Upper Newort Bay site (CA- Ora-64) suggest some tie to the San Diequito Tradition (ARI 1977). This • 7 Va site also dates to 6500 B.C., which falls within Warren's time frame for this period. However, the excavation also yielded evidence that even- the early native populations at the site exploited the marine resources of the bay. This subsistence strategy differs from the identified hunting strategy of the San Dieguito period. Further research is needed in order to document whether the San Dieguito Tradition exists in Orange County. By 5500 B.C., several prehistoric groups occupied both the coastal plains and foothills and the .interior valleys of the Southern California region. These early inhabitants represented the Millingstone Horizon for Wallace. Wallace lists the following diagnostic artifacts for this period: cogstones,_ stone di-scoidals, metates, manos, some soapstone objects, and a few bone awls. The people of the Millingstone Horizon were primarily plant food and shellfish collectors, as evidenced by the large number -of manos and metates. Few pro- jectile -points are found at these sites; however, some hunting and trapping of animals continued and is implied by the faunal remains of jack rabbits, pocket gophers; California ground squirrels, and deer mice. The Oak Grove culture in the Santa Barbara region (D. Rogers 1929) provided Wallace with his basic definition of this horizon. Wallace (1954) also identified this horizon - at the Little'Sycamore Site in Ventura County.. Other sites which contain this horizon include the Topanga Tank Site (Treganza and Malamud 1950), Malaga Cove, Level 2 (Walker 1951), and the La Jolla Sites in San Diego. C. Warren defines the -Encinitas Tradition, his next cultural development, as an ecological adaptation to littoral and coastal foothill environments. Like Wallace's Millingstone Horizon, the native populations relied on gather- ing of wild plants and on shellfish collecting rather than only on hunting wild game. Warren, however, describes this tradi�tion,as persisting for a long time in San Diego and suggests that this same pattern existed for the -entire Southern California region. Crude chopping and scraping tools, manos,.meta- tes, and large projectile points characterized this tradition. The mano and metate allowed these hunters and gatherers to render previously non -digestible plant foods into edible food. This new technology,- grinding hard seeds and other plant foods, gradually replaced projectile points as the primary subsis- tence tools. In Orange County, sites CA-0 ra-83, -85, -188 (Huntington Beach area), and -99A (Newport Beach area) tentatively represent this period (ARI 1977). Most of these sites are dense shell middens which contain few diagnostic artifacts. The absence of diagnostic artifacts of late periods places these sites within the Millingstone Horizon or the Encinitas Tradition. The lowest stratum of CA-Ora-119, Locus A (in Irvine), also represents this period. Here, the approximate date of 3500 B.C. and the large leaf -shaped projectile points, manos, and metates support the placement of this site within the Millingstone Horizon. • Lsa Wallace also uses subsistence -related artifacts to define the Interme- diate Horizon. He notes the introduction of the mortar and pestle and an increase in the number of small projectile points as indications of the Inter- mediate Horizon. As grinding tools, the mortar and pestle are usually identi- fied with acorn .processing (Leonard 1966) . The mortar and pestle technology implies that the native populations knew how to leach the poisonous tannic acid from acorns and make an edible food. Little archaeological evidence exists to support this Intermediate Horizon for the entire region., This. horizon remains defined for only a few sites: CA-Ora-196 in Irvine (Cottrell 1979), CA-Ora=507, and CA-Ora-486 in E1 Toro area (Van Horn 1980). 1 C. Warren instead defines a transitional tradition, the Campbell Tradi- tion, for only the Santa Barbara area. He. maintains that the silt -filled bays and estuaries of the northern counties demanded a new subsistence strategy for the coastal settlements. Here, an ocean-going technology developed to exploit deep-sea fishing and sea mammal hunting._ The native populations in Orange and San Diego Counties, according to Warren; maintained a mixed subsistence strategy of primarily gathering wild plants and collecting shellfish. However, certain traits of the Campbell Tra- dition, do appear in Orange County sites around 2000 B.C." Rice (1976) refers, to this period as the Encinitas II Tradition. These traits include the increase of stemmed, side -notched; and lanceolate -shaped projectile points and an increase in the number and styles of shell ornaments. The Late Prehistoric Horizon .begins approximately 1.000 A.D. . Wallace views this period as an elaboration of the number and kinds of artifacts from the previous horizon. Small, triangular projectile points which indicate the use of the bow and arrow characterize this horizon. The number of steatite vessels, bone tools, and other ceremonial and personal ornaments also increases in occurrence. Warren identifies three separate traditions for the region which develop- ed independently approximately 2,000 years ago. The Yuman Tradition developed in southern San Diego. The people of this tradition shared distinct cultural traits with the people of the Colorado/Gila River drainage (Moriarty 1966). The Chumash Tradition developed in the Santa Barbara area and possessed a com-' plex social'organization which included village chiefs, shamans, craft guilds, and commoners.. The Chumash became noted for their elaborate ornamental items and shell money. The Shoshonean Tradition covers a large geographical area which includes northern San Diego, Orange, and most of Los Angeles Counties. Warren (1968) leaves this tradition loosely defined. Generally, it is an elaboration of the previous characteristics of the Encinitas Tradition in Orange County. Archaeological evidence based on available linguistic evidence • E7 Lsa suggests that several groups entered this region from the Southern Great Basin. These groups are believed to have been Shoshonean -speakers .who, in moving to the coast, separated the indigenous Hokan-speaking groups. The appearance of cremations, small triangular points, bone tools, and use of asphalt marks this cultural period. By 1000 A.D. this period is also identi- fied by ceramic smoking pipes and brownware pottery. This latest prehistoric period ended rather abruptly with 'the Spanish expeditions and establishment of missions and outposts during, the 18th centu= ry. With the founding. -of Mission San Gabriel Archangel in 1771 and Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1776, the prehistoric life was gradually abandoned as more and more Indians - became neophytes of the missions. The post -contact native populations of Southern California were divided into groups by the Spanish, based on the similarity of their spoken language and their proximity to lands controlled by the missions. Ethnographic Background According to A. L. Kroeber (1925:6211, L. J. Bean and C. R. Smith (1978: 538), and B. E. Johnston (1962:37), the geographic location of the City of Irvine study area falls within the traditional Gabrielino territory during the protohistoric period. At the time of European contact, the Southern Gabrie- lino occupied most of present-day Los Angeles County south of the Santa Monica Mountains, half of present-day Orange County, part of Riverside County, and Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands (Kroeber 1925:620): The name Gabrielino is an Americanization of a Spanish word referring to Native Californians living on lands controlled- by Mission San Gabriel. The Gabrielino may have called themselves Town a-va.- A. L. K.roeber recorded the Luiseno name for Gabrielino as Tumangama u-1 m,-"northerners," and C. H. Merriam recorded the Buena Vista Lake Yokut name for Gabrielino as -miyah-hik-tchal- lop, "long arms." The Ventura Chumash who lived north of the Gabrielino called them Ataplilish (Heiner 1968). The Gabrielino language was one of the Cupan languages of the Takic fami- ly of the greater Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock. The Takic family is further divided into six languages: Gabri-el-ino-Fernandeno, Luiseno-Juaneno, Serrano, Kitanemuk, Cahuilla, and Cupeno. These Takic-speaking people moved into. southwestern California by at least 500 A.D.- and displaced the earlier Hokan-speaking people related to the Chumash in the Santa Barbara area and_ the Yumans in San Diego County. Ethno- graphic accounts and archaeological evidence from -the Gabrielino territory • 10 Lsa indicate that the Gabrielino occupied a number of permanent villages along the coast and in the inland valley regions. Although the Gabrielino maintained a complex socio-political organization, wild food foraging and limited hunting in the. interior areas.and intensive shellfish gathe-ri.ng and sea mammal hunting along the.coast characterized their subsistence. The Gabrielino were organized in patrilineal lineages- and' clans. Larger villages were politically affiliated with'satellite villages, bound to them by socio-economic and religious ties. Leadership was inherited, and was legiti- mized by possession of =a "sacred bundle" which provided a tangible link with the sacred past. Chiefs shared administrative duties with shamans, and with other officials of -the group who distributed food after communal hunts and organized the annual mourning ceremonies (Bean and Smith 1978: 543-544). 'METHODOLOGY The research effort for -this project consisted of . two phases:. archival research- and field reconnaissance. Modern topographic: maps link these two phases.by providing the basis for data organization. Archival Research The. archival search checks for any previously recorded materials of .archaeological significance concerning ,the project area. This information. gai-ned beforehand reduces duplication of effort as well as provides up-to-date archaeological information on the immediate area for field reconnaissance. This records search included the following sources: files, site records, and maps housed. at the University of Cal i fornta, Los Angeles (UCLA) Archaeo- logical Survey -(the State -recognized clearinghouse for archaeological records for Orange County), and files and records housed at the.Orange County Environ- mental Management Agency under the supervision of Rob Selway.- The site maps at UCLA indicate that 129 archaeological sites have been previously identified within or adjacent to the boundaries of the .study- area. Table A lists these recorded archaeological sites and includes the site num- ber; site description, date the site was recorded, and condition and archaeo- logical status of the site (e.g., -whether the site has been tested or salvaged and whether a report exists). The condition of a site (preserved, disturbed, or destroyed) can be determined only by an in -field visit, a task which was not included in the scope of work for this study except for those sites newly recorded or sites immediately adjacent to the surveyed portions. However, IDattempts were made to determine the condition of sites within the study area: based upon available documentation. Under the condition column in Table A, SR stands for site record. TABLE A 11 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF IR INE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No./ Artifactual Date/ Planning CA -Ora- Description Material Size Update Condition Area. 106/219- shell midden asphaltum, 350 x 160 ft. 1-938 WPA: tested I 25A with lithic burials, 1950 SR: impacted artifacts points, stone .1981 Douglas-: re- tool & grinding located (1) implements, 540 x 840 ft. 1966 SR impacted chipping waste 1979 Cottrell: tested 107 shell midden points, 125 x 250 ft. 1938 WPA: tested I 25A with lithic asphaltum, 1950 SR: impacted artifacts, stone -grinding 1967 PCAS: tested cemetery implements 1981 Weil.: relocated 3 Toc i : 1) mound,, 11 burials -- 2) Sepulveda - structure 3) shell mid - den with lithic arti facts 115a&b shell-midden with stone - grinding implements 116a&b shell midden with lithic artifacts 0 grave goods 240 x 70 ft. 1938 WPA: salvaged- I 19B burials historic glass and metal, ceramics, wood bowl fragments, pestle fragment, manos stone -grinding implements, charcoal, manos, metates, and his- toric items 300 x.200 ft. 1975 Westec: tested 700 x 900 ft. 650 x 400 ft. 200 x 200 ft. 1976 .Rice and Cot- trell: tested 1976 Mitchell: nomi nation 1963 1963 1980 n. d. SR: impacted SR: intact Hurd: tested Hurd: marine I 37 I 37 TABLE A (continued) ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 12 Site No./ Artifactual Date/ Planning CA Ora- Description Material- Size Update Condition. Area 119 a,b, shell midden, stone tools, 420 x 540 ft.'. '140 1963- SR: disturbed I 24 &"c 3 shell ornaments, x 180 yrds. 1966 Lytton: tested., ,burials, lithic arti- stone bowl, 30 x 30 m. 1981 Allen: salvage facts pestle, steatite (Locus B)- pendant-& beads, 1981 Koerper (.Ph.D. points Dissertation) (Locus A) 1976 Rice: tested 120 shell midden pestle fragment, 255-x 255 ft. 1963 SR: intact I 19B with lithic bowl fragment, 1975 ARI:-salvaged artifacts, stone tools, Post- Gill: 1M.A. 2-burials chipping waste, 1975 Thesis) shell instrument., cogstones 12-1 shell midden stone -grinding 3000 x 1000 ft. 1963 SR: impacted I 368 with lithic implements, 2000 z 100 ft. 1966. SR: impacted artifacts points, chip- 1973 Ellis: tested/ ping waste. one area - 1978 Cottrell: tested/one area 1979 Westec: sal- vaged portion 124/134 shell midden stone -grind- 200 x 50 ft. 1963 SR: impacted I 25A with lithic ing imple- 1965 SR: impacted artifacts ments, points, 1.967 Chace:— tested stone & bone tools, chip- ing waste, shell beads, 125 rock shelter 6 x 24 yds. 1963 SR: intact I 25A with shell 1965 PCAS.: tested midden 1981 Weil: relocated 78 lithic scat- chipping waste, 500 x 90 ft. 1966 1972-3 SR: impacted ARI:-suevey I 21 ter with shell mano fragment, granite chopper 1979• Cooley: tested 0 1 TABLE A (continued) 13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRVINE AND'ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No./. Artifactual Date/ Planning . CA -Ora-. Description Material Size Update Condition- Area 195 shell midden manos, debitage, 300 x 1000 ft. 1967 SR: impacted I 36B with lithic hammerstones, 500 x 320 ft. 1967 Desautels and artifacts points, his:- Fenenga: par- 15 prehis- torical evi- tial salvage toric burials dence, bone tools, shell implements 196 1) shell mid- stone -grinding 1000 x 100 ft.' 1967 SR: impacted I 19A den with tool implements, 1969 PCAS: survey Ti thi c bone awl., shell '1969 Hayes and Long: artifacts, ornaments surface col -- burials lection 1976 Cottrell: tested 2) historic historic ceram- 1979- Cottrell: partial locus ics, and glass salvage 197 shell scatter projectile 50 x 150 ft. 1967 SR: impacted I 19B with lithic point, shell 1976 Cottrell: tested artifacts ornaments and 1977 Craib-: sal - implements, vaged mano, metate 206 shell midden none noted 1200 ft. 1966 SR: impacted I 25A, 1981 Weil: site destroyed 207 shell scatter none noted 50 x 10 ft. 1966 SR: intact I 25A 1981 Douglas: site . destroyed 208 shell scatter none noted 80 x 25 ft. 1966 SR:.intact I 25A 1975 Drover: tested and mitigated 209 shell midden 80 x 40 ft. 1966 SR: impacted. I 25A 1981 Douglas: re- located 10 rock shelter none noted 10 x 5 ft. 1966 1981 SR.: th tact I Douglas-: re- 25A with shell midden located • TABLE A (continued) 14 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SRHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No./ Artifactual 'Date/ . Planning CA -Ora- Description Material Si-ze. Update Condition Area 211 shell midden hammerstone 40 ft. 1966 SR: impacted I 25A 1981 Douglas: did, not relocate 216 shell scatter debitage 40 x 40 ft. 1966 SR: impacted I 25A 1981 Douglas: de- - stroyed 220 shell midden chipping waste, 210 x 155 ft. i965 SR: impacted I 25A with lithic mano, scraper 1981 'Douglas: re - artifacts located 221 shell midden scraper; debitage 60 x 30 m. '1965 SR:'i'ntact I 25B with lithic manos 1981 Weil: -relocated 222 223 224 225 226 1027 artifacts shell midden with lithic artifacts shell midden with 1 i th-i c artifacts scraper, mano, pestle manos, chipping. waste, hammer - stone, steatite bowl burnt rock, mano projectile points, asphal- tum, mano, chop- per, chi-pping waste shell midden chipping waste, with lithic points, pendant artifacts lithic scat- scraper, mano, ter with shell chipping waste, hearths shell midden with lithic artifacts shell midden and historic debris 75 x 40 m. 1965 1981 225 x 130 ft. 1965 1981 12 x 20 ft.. 1966 270 x 200 ft. 1966 766 x 175 ft. 1966 135 x 80 ft. 1966 1977 1979 SR: impacted. , I 258 Weil: relocated SR: impacted I 25A Douglas: re- located SR: destroyed I 25B SR: intact I 25B SR: impacted I 25B SR: impacted I 25B Van Horn-: tested Douglas: sal- vaged TABLE A (continued) 15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OFIRV'INE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. Site No./ Artifactual Date/ Planning CA -Ora- Description Material Size Update Condition Area 228 shell midden mano, burnt rock, 1/2 acre 1967 SR: impacted I 21 and possible stone tools 280 sq.. m: 1978. Mabry: tested ceremonial center 231. rock shelter with shell scatter cooking stones, charred human bone, points," beads, stone - grinding imple- ments, hammerstones 20 x 15 ft. 1967 SR: impacted I 26 1967 PCAS: tested 1981 " Weil: ,relocated sj3 2 shell midden points, beads, 150" x 200 ft. 1968 SR: i"mp4cted With lithic faunal implements, 60'x 55. m. 1977 SR: impacted artifacts burnt rock, chip- ping waste, many, pestle, scraper, metate . 233 lithic scatter chipping waste, 150 x 250 ft. 1968 with shell hammerstone, 1981 mano, choppers- 234 shell midden none noted: 50 x 75 ft:" 1968 historic ceramics 1981 and glass noted 235 shell midden chipping waste," 300 x 50 ft. A 967 with lithic mano, bedrock 1981 artifacts mortar 236 rock shelter, cooking rock, 50 x 20 m. 1968 and shell projectile 19'68' midden points, shell 1975 beads, bone tools" 1981 244 shell midden points, manos, over 40 acres 1965 with numerous metates, scrapers, - 1981 lithic "arti- chipping waste facts ,C 4 SR: intact . C 4 Weil; relocated SR: intact Weil: did not relocate SR: intact Weil: did not relocate SR: impacted PCAS:. tested Hines: M.A. "thes-i s Weill relocated SR: impacted Cottrel'l:,par- tial excava- tion I' 25B I 26 -I 4-5 TABLE A (continued) 16 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No./ Artifac.tual Date/ Plann.ing CA -Ora- Description Material Size Update Condition Area 269 rock shelter petroglyph 10 x 40 ft. 1969 SR: intact 126 with shell midden 270 rock shelter petroglyph 30 x - 30 ft. 1-969 SR: impacted I 26 with shell midden 271 rock shelter none noted 50 x 30 ft. 1969 SR: i-ntact I 26 with shell scatter rock shelter none noted 8 x 15 ft. 1969 SR: intact I 26- 6272 with shell 1981 Weil,: relocated midden 273- rock shelter none noted 15 x 25 ft. 1969 SR: in -tact I 26 with shell scatter 275 shell scatter mano, debitage 200 x 400 ft. 1977 SR: impacted 125E with lithics ' 1984 ARM: did not 284 shell midden none noted 336 rock shelter petroglyph with lithic scatter 341 lithic scatter hammerstone, manos, chop- pers 343 rock shelter chipping waste, with shell flakes, cores scatter 344 lithic scatter manos, hammer- 0 stone, -chopper 100 x 200 ft. 1970 6 x 3 x 1-1/2 m. 1971 200 x 300 ft. 1972 1983 30 x 30 m. 1972 1979 20 x 40 m. 1972 1979 relocate SR; impacted' I 36B. SR': intact 'I 22 SR: intact I 13B Padon: relo- cated SR: intact I 21 Mabry: relocated SR: impacted I 16 Mabry: relo= Gated TABLE A (continued). 17 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRV-INE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No./ Artifactual Date/ Planning CA -Ora- Description Material Size Update Condition Area '34.9 lithic scatter hammerstones, 75 x 25 yds. 1972 SR: impacted I 16 milling stone 1979 Mabry: relo- fragments sated 350 rock shelter chipping waste, 15 x 15 m. 1972 SR: intact - - I 21 with shell stone tools, 10 m. (exclu- 1980 Cottrell: tested midden shell instru- sive of shel- ments and ter) jewel ry, stone - grinding imple- ments, points 361 lithic arti- manos, metate 20 x 80 m. 1972 SR: impacted I 2A facts fragments-, cores, 1982 B-reece: relo- hammerstones cated 373 lithic scatter, manos,-core, 600 x 600 ft. 1972 SR: impacted I 10A- 3 burials chipping, debris, 1973 Ellis: tested - metate fragment 1979 Howard: salvaged 376 lithic arti- chipping waste; not given .1972 SR: impacted I 21 facts with point, pestle, 1976 ARI: salvaged shell scatter manos 317 lithic arti- chipping waste, 200 x 50-ft. 1972 SR: impacted I' 21 facts with metate fragment, 1976 ARI: salvaged* shell scatter mano 378 shell midden chipping waste, 300 x 300 ft. 1972 SR: intact I 21 with lithic manos, metates, artifacts cores, flakes 379 2 rock shel- cooking stone, 15 x 10- ft.. 1972 SR: intact ters with mano, bedrock 10_x 10 ft. 1979 Mabry: tested mortar, flakes 1980 Douglas: sal- vaged 382 shell scatter debitage, burnt 100 x 50 ft. 1972 SR: intact I 21 with lithic rock 1979 Mabry: rel-ocated artifacts 9 TABLE A _(continued') 18 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ,WITHIN THE CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No./ CA -Ora- Description Artifactual Material Size Date/ Update Planning Condition Area 383 rock shelter with shell manos, metates,, 50 x 50 chipping waste, ft. 1972 1979 SR: intact I 16 Mabry: intact, midden burnt rocks, hammerstones 384 lithic scatter metate fragments, 125 x 75 manos,-chipping ft. 1972 1979 - SR: intact I 16 Mabry: relocated waste, hammerstone 386 shell midden pestle, manos, with lithic cores,.metate artifacts 87 lithic scatter manos, metate fragment 391 lithic scatter .chipping waste, manos, hammer .stones, choppers_ 478 lithic scatter manos, bowl frag- ment, chipping waste, hammerstone 480 shell scatter chipping waste, with lithic worked shell scatter 481 shell midden burnt rock, chip- - ping waste 482 shell midden worked stone, chipping waste, burnt rock 483 shell midden burnt rock, mano fragment, scraper 250 x 100 -ft. 1973 SR: intact I 16 1980 Douglas: tested 50 x 200 ft.. 1973 SR: i°n.tact I 16 1979 Mabry: relocated 500 x 500 ft. 1973 SR: impacted 'I 13B 1984 Padon: tested 50-x 100 M. -1974- SR: impacted I 4-5 10 x 30 m. 1974 SR: impacted I 25A 1975 Drover: tested 40 x 15 m. 1974 SR: impacted.-. I 25A 50 x 20 m. 1974 SR: impacted I 25A 1981 Douglas: re- located 100 x' 20 m. 1974 1979 1981 SR: ilnpacted I 25A Cottrell': tested Douglas: re- located TABLL A (continued) 19 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No,./ Artifactual Date/ Planning 'CA -Ora- Description Material Size Update Condition_ Area 494 rock shelter ceramics, chip- 3 x 11:.5 .m. 1974 SR: intact I 17 with shell ping waste, midden hearth 495' lithic scatter, hammerstones, 954 x 370•m. - 1974 SR: impacted. •I 13B rock cairns. manos, chipping 195 x• 90 M. 1978 SR: impacted, waste, piled 1979 Westec: re - rock (1980 located report) 1982 CSRI: tested- 496 'shell *scatter manos, cores, 231 x 154 m. 1974 SR: impacted I 17 with lithic debitage (indicated in 1978 Dodge: relocated scatter 1980 drawings.) 1979 Bean & Vane: rel-ocated 1980 Westec: impacted 1982 .CSRI: tested 499 lithic scatter manos, metates, 100 x 50 m. 1974 SR: impacted I 13.B' chopper, core, 1978 Dodge; relocated - debitage 1979 Bean & Vane: relocated - 1980 Westec: relocated 1982 CSRI: tested- 508 shell scatter manor, metate '30 acres 1975 SR: impacted 114 with lithic fragments, 1979 Westec: portion artifacts hammerstones, salvage,-rec. cores, flakes no further pursuit 511 lithic scatter chipping waste,, 24,000 sq. ft. 1975 SR: impacted- 14-5 cores, flakes 513 special activ- chert cores and 5,000 sq. ft. 1976 SR: impacted I 2B ity area some shell 1978 SRS: destroyed 520 lithic scatter chipping waste, 10 sq. m. 1976 SR:. intact I 4-5 flakes, core 1979 SRS: tested 0 - TABLE A (continued) 20 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF I'RVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No./ Artifactual -Date/ Planning CA -Ora- Description Material Size Update -C.ondition Area 521 lithic scatter bedrock mortar, 100 x 40-1m. 1976 SR: intact I 4-5 with burial chipping waste, 1978 SRS: tested knife, burnt rock, stone tools, bone tools, points, shell implements - 522 lithic scatter worked stone, 15 x 25 m. 1976 'SR: intact I 4-5 stone tool 1978 SRS: tested implements 523 1 i thi c. scatter flakes, cores, 30 x- -30 m. 1976 SR: intact I 4-5 hammerstone 1978 SRS: tested - &24 lithic scatter manor chipping 10 x 5 m. 1976 SR: intact I 4-5 waste 543 lithic scatter hamm_erstone, unknown 1976 SR: impacted I 12B = debitage, 1977 Cottrell: tested scrapers 545 lithic scatter manos, metate 180 x 125 m. 1976 SR: impacted I 4-5 fragments, ham- 1982 Breece: relo- merstones, chop- cated, dis- p er to rbed 575 shell midden flakes, cores, 360 x 160 ft. 1975 SR: intact UCI with lithic chipping waste, 1976- ARI/Recon: scatter: burnt rock tested historic portion invalid 601 lithic scatter chipping waste, 60 x 80 ft. 1974 SR: impacted I 4-5 flakes 1982 Breece: relo- cated, impacted 602 lithic scatter bowl fragment, 50 x 50 yds. 1976 SR: impacted I 35B manos, cores, • metate fragment TABLE A_(continued) 21 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No./ Artifattual Date/ Planning. CA Ora Description Material Size Update Condition Area 617 shell scatter chipping waste, 20 x 30 ft. 1977 SR: intact I 26 with lithic flakes 1981 Weil: site scatter- destroyed 618 lithic scatter 2 metates 1977 SR: intact I 25B with some shell 1981 Weil: site destroyed 619 shell scatter stone tool, 500 x 300 ft. 1977 SR: impacted I 25B chipping waste 1977 Van Horn: tested 1981 Weil: did not relocate 20 lithic scatter scrapers, core; 300 x 200. ft. 1977 SR: intact .-I 25B burnt rock, 100 x 50 ft. 1977 Van Horn: tested metate fragments, 1-981 Weil: did not flakes relocate 649 lithic scatter chipping waste 75 x 75 m. 1977 SR: intact I 4-5 1981 LSA: surface collection 1982 Breece: relo- cated, dis- turbed, 650 lithic scatter chipping waste, 75 x 75 m. 1977 SR: impacted I 4-5 manos, metate 1981 Cottrell-: de - fragment, hammer- stroyed stones 651 lithic scatter hammerstones, 75 x 75 m. 1977 manos, scrapers 1-981 652' lithic scatter scraper, cores, manos, metates 689 rock shelter faunal imple- with shell ment, chipping midden waste 717 lithic scatter hammerstones, manos, metate 75 x 75 m. 1977 7.6 x 8.1 m. 1977 (i'nc. talus) SR: impacted Cottrell: de- stroyed SR: impacted SR: impacted 100 x 30 m. 1977 SR: i.ntact I 4-5 I 4-5 I 26 I 4-5 TABLE A (continued) 22 ARCHAEOLOG.ICAL SITES WITHIN THE .CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF -INFLUENCE Site No./ Artifactual Date/ Planning CA -Ora- Description Material Size Update Condition' Area 718 lithic scatter metate, _manos, 100 x 50 m. 1977 SR: :intact I 4-5 hammerstones 719 lithic scatter choppers, cores, 30 x 25 m. 1978 SR: intact I 2A scrapers 720 lithic scatter metate, scraper, ''400- x 100 m. '1978 SR: intact I 4-5 cores, manos 721 lithic scatter -choppers, 30. x 25 m. 1978 SR: intact I 4-5 729 lithic scatter hammerstone; 100 x 20 m... 1978 SR: intact I 25B core, manor,, 1979 Mabry: tested- 1 metate frag- ment, chipping waste 730 rock shelter mano fragments, = with shell chipping waste midden 731 lithic scatter chipping waste 732 rock shelter chipping waste, with shell flakes scatter - 733 rock shelter chipping waste, with shell flakes scatter 734 rock shelter none observed with shell scatter 735 rock shelter mano with shell scatter 06 rock shelter core, flakes, with shell hammerstone midden 100 x 100 m. 1978 SR: intact_ I 22 1982 Padon: relo- cated 20 x 20 M. 1978 SR: intact 122 10 x 10 m. 1978 SR: 'intact I 22 1982* Pa.don: relocated 20 x 30 m. 1978 SR: intact I 22 1982 Padon: relocated 10 x 8 m. 19.7,8 SR: i ntact I 22 1982 Padon: relocated 20 x 30 m. 1978 SR-: intact I 22 1982 Padon': relo- cated, intact 30 x 28 m. 1978 SR': intact I 22 (inside & out) TABLE A (continued) 23' ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE. CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site, No./, Artifactual Date/ Planning CA -Ora- Description Material Size Update Condition Area 7.61 lithic scatter manos, metates, undetermined 1978' SR: impacted 14-5 cores, scrapers 1984 P-adon: did not relocate 762 lithic scatter metates, manos', 1978' SR: intact I 4-5 cores, discoidal, 1982 Breece: relo- hammerstone cated, d-is- turbed 1984 Padon: relocated 767a&b lithic scatter metate fragments, 40 x 40 M. 1978 SR:*intact - I 22 manos, hammer - stones &769 lithic scatter manos, cores, hammerstones 797 lithic scatter chipping waste, with shell mano, flakes scatter .798 special bedrock slick. Activity 20 x 20 m. 1978 SR-: -intact 50 x 100 m. 1979 1979 1982 799 special bedrock slick 1979 activity 1982 800 special bedrock mortar 1979 activity 1982 801 special bedrock mortar 1979' activity 1982 03 lithic scatter chipping waste 30 x 40 m. 1979 04 lithic scatter chipping waste 40 x 60 m. 1979 805 lithic scatter chipping waste 100 m. 1979 SR: impacted SR,: intact ,Padon: not relocated SR: intact Padon-: not relocated SR:. intact Padon: not relocated SR: intact Padon: not relocated SR: impacted SR: intact SR: intact I 18 I 25B I 22 I 22 I 22 I 22 I 22 I 22 I 22 TABLE A (continued) 24. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No./ A'rtifactual - Date/ Planning CA -Ora- Description. Material Size -Update Condition Area 806 shell scatter burnt rock, pro- 350 x 250 m. 1979 SR: -impacted I 16 jectile point 1979 :Mabry: relocated 807 rock shelter burnt rock, 25. x 30 M. .1979 SR: intact 117 with shell chipping waste '1979 Mabry: relocated scatter 808 rock shelter burnt rock, 30 x 40 m. -1979 SR: intact I 16 with shell chipping waste 1979 Mabry: relocated, scatter 809 rock -shelter chipping waste with lithic s 41810 scatter lithic scatter hearth? stone - grinding and tool implements, chi-p- pi n.g waste 811 rock shelter hearths, flakes with shell midden 815 rock shelter 1 cobble mano with lithic scatter 822 1) lithic manos, cores, scatter flakes 2) shell scatter 904 lithic scatter flakes, cores, hammerstones 1011 lithic scatter flakes, mano, with historic hammerstone farm equipment • onsite 5 x 10 m. 1979 1979 20 x .20 m. 1979 1979 40 x 40 m. 19:79 SR: intact I 16 Mabry: relocated SR! impacted I 16/ Mabry.:. relocated 17 SR: impacted I 12A 172 x 105 m. 1979' SR: impacted. 121 1983 Padon: diA not relocate 180 x 60 m. 1979 SR: intact I 16 60 x 30 m. 100 x 200 m. 1980' SR: intact I 13B 12 x 15 m. 1982 SR: impacted I 13B TABLE A (continued) 25 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRVINE AND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Site No./ Artifactual. Date/ Planning CA -Ora- Description Material Size Update Condition Area 1029 rock shelter none noted 10 x 4 x 3 M. 1-982 SR: impac.te_d I 22 - with 'shell scatter 1 Relocated = found again. 6 • • 26 Wa The archival search also revealed that additional archaeological work has been conducted at several of these sites-.. Previous systematic. -surveys have also included major portions of the project,area. These areas -we -re- outlined on the appropriate USGS topographic maps in order to defi-ne the remaining unsurveyed areas. From the compiled data, two indexed base -maps have been prepared. One base map consists of 'recorded archaeological sites. indexed by the trinomial site number designated by the State C1 eari.nghouse.. For refer- ence, the base maps include those archaeological sites, located within the Uni- versity of California at Irvine campus; however, these -sites, were not listed in Table A since they lie outside the direct project area. The second base map consists of recorded field surveys indexed according to the area covered, the company conducting the .survey; and the date the report was submitted.. Only those surveys for which! reports have.b.een prepared and submitted to the two resource agencies referenced- above were included ,on the map and accompanying index. Background Prior to passage of the California Environmental Quality Act -,of 1970 (CEQA), most local agencies did not require systematic surveys of private _properties for archaeological resources, Early surveys .were -conducted by interested archaeologists, both avocational and professional, whenever volun- teers were available and landowner permission could be obtained. As a result-,. the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (PCAS.),, an avocational group, and Archaeological Research, Inc. (ARI)., a non -.profit corporation, conducted most of the pre-1974 archaeological surveys. Surveys conducted .by PCAS.were on a vol u'nteer basis.. However, The I rvi ne Company funded many, of the surveys con- ducted by ARI in the late 1960s and early.1970s (Schroth 1979): Since 1970, most local agencies have required systematic surveys of pri- vate properties as part of the Environmental Impact Report process., In 1973, the C.ity of Irvine adopted a General Plan that outlined goals., obj.ectives,, action policies, and standards for community development. The Historical and Archaeological Sites Element of the General Plan provided a. -broad policy guidance for the disposition. of hi`stori cal and archaeol ogi-cal sites,, and 'for development of the historic context of the Irvine area. - With implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act came the ,need for more definitive policies. In February of 1975, discussions on the proper role of archaeology, history, and paleontology in the overall planning policies of the City began. This discussion culminated in the adoption of a Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Policy and Program. The policy -package and -action pro- gram: • 27 Ua 1. Establish historical, archaeological and. paleontological plan- ning programs as a priority item in the City; 2. Allocate staff time and City funds to the pursuit of the pol. i cy; 3. Establish an "Historical., Archaeological, and Paleontological Committee" as an advisory committee to the City._ Previous Surveys and Reports There are two major problems or concerns regarding archaeological field surveys and resulting reports. The first and greatest problem: applies primarily to the earliest surveys, while the second and. 'lesser concern applies to reports submitted since 1976. Since surveys done prior to passage and implementation of CEQA were undertaken by archaeol.gists primarily for specific areal or research interest, reports may not have been prepared. 'If reports were prepared, they may' be lost, consist only of a brief letter, or contain only vague or ambiguous descriptions of the methods used and areas covered. Such reports fail to meet CEQA Guidelines. Generally, reports have 'been prepared on' surveys done since 1976, although there may be a lag time of a few days to several months between com- pletion of a report and submission of that report to the State Clearinghouse. As local agencies have become more specific in their guidelines for imp.lemen- tation of CEQA., the surveys and resulting reports have become more consistent, accurate, and complete. Even high -quality surveys and reports undertaken to implement CEQA guide- lines -may not be adequate if field conditions are ,poor. Thick vegetation, particularly after a winter of heavy rainfall.,. may obscure the ground -surface, and require that further surveys 'b& conducted after surface vegetation is cut back or removed. For purposes of this study, vague. location information or no desc.ription of the survey methods used flagged a survey as inadequate. Any areas suppos- edly covered by such studies were then included in the present systematic survey. However, if an area was noted as sensitive for archaeological re- sources or as unsurveyed because of dense vegetation cover, and if the survey report over that area was judged adequate, then that area was excluded from this present study. These areas were excluded because the survey_ reports • recommended that additional walk -over investigations be conducted when visi- bility is better and prior to approval 'of the -Tentative Tract Map. WE Field Methods Lsa The topographic diversity of the study area required the use of several different survey techniques in order to conduct an adequate yet economical reconnaissance. - The degree of ground visibility, the ruggedness of the terrain, and the potential for cultural resource, areas demanded flexibility. The field crew made standard transects, with the surveyors spaced at 15 to 20- meter intervals, over approximately two thirds of the surveyed area. This was most effective in citrus ,groves, open valleys, broad knolls, and flat terraces. In standard, transects; the individual surveyor followed a zigzag path covering all of the .sector while creating minimum overlap. At narrow ridges, the survey team split into individual teams to inspect the individual. erosional fingers and isolated knolls. The survey team also did spot- check.ing.. Occasionally, a- bedrock cl-aster or overhang may be noted on the side, of a hi-11 or just outside a study boundary. In such instances a surveyor would visit these areas to search for mortars, caches, caves, or other site indicators. Throughout the survey the crew examined for subsurface remains by inspecting any available rodent burrow backdirt, various strata cuts, and exposed drainage banks. Special Problems Eight portions within the previously unsurveyed study area coul d not be inspected due to a vari.ety of circumstances. The most extensive unsurveyed portion is the nursery and . adj-acent agri c.ul.tural fields located between Jeffrey Road and Sand Canyon Road, south of Siphon Reservoir and Hicks Canyon Wash; where crops and the nursery prevented: the crew from surveyi=ng. The second area not inspected was a small knoll located just south of Lambert Reservoir, where several .grazing bulls prevented a systematic survey. The third area is the Orange County Industrial Farm property .and the agricultural fields immediately adjacent to this property. New plants and densely -growing crops in the fields and restricted entry onto the County Farm property pre- vented an adequate survey of this area. The fourth area not -inspected con- sisted of the Lion County Safari property, deleted because of the zoo. _The E1 Toro USGS 7.5' quadrangle contains these four unsurveyed areas. The remaining areas not inspected include four small portions on the Tustin USGS 7.5' quad- rangle. The southwest corner of the intersection of the Laguna Freeway and I-405, covered by a strawberry crop, was the fifth unsurveyed area. The'last three unsurveyed portions are agricultural fields located within the area bounded by. Bryan Road, Myford Road, Little San Joaquin Val l,ey, and Culver Boulevard. New plants and strawberries in these fields limited crew entry. • 29 Wa The total area not surveyed measures approximately. 1,.400 acres. These areas not surveyed are indicated on the topographic base map. William H. Breece and:a two or three -person field crew conducted this systematic survey of- the study area between November 12 and December 11,, 1984. The crew spent a total of 363 person -hours in the field. The total area sur- veyed measures approximately 10,500 acres. FIELD SURVEY RESULTS The systematic; on -foot survey of the study area' documented three pre- viously unrecorded prehistoric sites., -and seven previously unrecorded prehis- toric isolated finds. In addition, the survey crew found a sandstone cave with a possible prehistoric etching on the wall, designated as an archaeo- logically .sensitive area until further research documents its prehistoric value. The following provides a description of these new cultural resources. CA-Ora-1069 This site is located' southwest of. the intersection of the Laguna Freeway and I-405. The site encompasses a north/south.trending ridge, a low knoll, and a slope that leads down from the ridge. The site overlooks *an unnamed drainage to the east. Site CA-Ora-904 lies approximately 300 meters north of this site at the northern end of the ridge. On the low knoll located imme- diately adjacent to the drainage. at 310 feet above sea level,' the crew noted three oval granitic mano fragments, one granitic metate fragment, one chert core, one metavolcanic core, and five Pecten shell fragments-. The ridge por- tion of the site, located at 460 feet above sea level, yielded one metavolcanic core, one obsidian. flake, two chert flakes, tw.o, metavoicanic flakes, three granitic metate fragments and a single- Chione shell fragment. The site material continued from the ridge area to the knoll located south- west. On the gentle slope leading to this knoll, the crew -recorded one quart- zite core tool, one granitic hammerstone, one granitic metate fragment, two broken, oval granitic manos and one piece of chert debitage. The site area measures approximately 200 meters east/west and 60 meters north/south. The slope between the ridge and the low knoll rises. steeply, however, the crew noted three metate fragments and mano fragments on this slope: The types of artifacts at the site indicate stone tool manufacturing and, extensive milling and grinding activities. Shellfish fragments i_n the rodent back dirt on the low knoll indicate the possiblfty of subsurface material also at this site. Broken pieces of wood and metal, remnants of farm equipment, are found on the ridge top and a dirt access road passes through the site area at the ridge to • the southwest. 0 30 CA-0 ra-1070 Lsa This site lies above Agua Chinon Wash, east and north of the E1 Toro Marine Base. The site is located on ,three adjacent knolls, connected by -a saddle- to the southwest and -separated. by a small drainage to the -northeast. A dirt access road bisects the main knoll of the site area. The crew recorded on the central knoll ten granitic, oval whole manos-, twelve granitic mano fragments', four granitic metate fragments, six cores, 30 flakes-, and one meta - volcanic scraper. Chert,'jasper, and metavolcanic flakes were noted with the majority consisting of :chert. None of the flakes showed retouching or 'use. 0-n the southwest knoll the crew noted two granitic 'mano fragments-, one whole granitic mano, and seven pieces of a single metate. The knoll located at the northeast yielded one whole granitic, basin metate, one granitic mano,, and -one mano fragment.- The whole metate basin 1-ies approximately '120 meters from the central knoll, with the other artifacts' found between this metate and the central knoll. Disturbance to the site area includes the dirt access road and discing along the edge of the southwest knoll, but most of the site remains undisturbed. The site measures approximately 170 meters northeast to south- west-, and 40 meters northwest to southeast. CA-Ora-1071 This prehistoric' site is located above and on the west side of Agua Chinon Wash. It lies one and a half miles northeast of Lambert Reservoir. The entire site consists of a concentrated area of lithic flakes, estimated at more than 200 flakes. This count included'.cortical, primary; secondary, and retouched flakes as - well as chipped debris. One chert core. and an unused Cheri chunk was also found. Also 95 percent of the material is the brown - yellow chert, with the remainder consisting of 'gray -banded, red, and black chert. The site area includes a rather steep -sided ridge, with the flake - concentration on top, 800 feet above sea. level. -The site area measures approximately-50 meters southeast/northwest, and 22 meters northeast/ south- west. The crew noted no disturbance to this site except for minimal soil erosion. Inspection of the rodent burrows indicated no -midden soil. - Archaeological survey forms have been filled out and submitted to the UCLA Archaeological Survey to document these newly -recorded sites. Due to confidentiality, these forms are not included with this report, but are avail- able for review at the State Clearinghouse. Isolated Artifacts Isolate #1. The first isolated find consisted of one shallow - basin metate fragment. It was located in a saddle southeast of- Sand Canyon Creek • 31 Lsa and north of Shady' Canyon. Careful i-nspection- of the surrounding area failed to reveal any additional cultural material. Photographs are. on file at LSA. . Isolate #2. This isolate was a granitic bowl fragment found .200 meters northeast of CA-Ora-807. No other cultural material was observed with this artifact. It lies on a small knoll across,from a south -trending drain- age. Photographs are on file at LSA. Isolate #3. This isolated artifact was :located in a road -cut adja- cent to the citrus grove above the channelized Peters Canyon Creek, approxi- mately 60 meters northeast of Bryan Road. It consisted of a whole chest pro- jectile point. A careful inspection of the area yielded no additional arti- factural remains. Photographs are on file• at'LSA. Iso-late A. The crew found this granitic shallow basin metate -frag- ment within the far northwest corner of the project area. It lies within a citrus grove 35 meters south of a dirt access road and about 300 meters• east of the future extension of Myford Road. The surface survey did not yield any other artifacts within the vicinity of this metate fragment. Photographs are on *file at LSA. Isolate #5. This isolate artifact consisted of one granitic, whole pestle. It was located on the southern slope of a low knoll, and 400 meters northeast of CA-Ora-1070. Sparse sage and cactus permitted a c-areful inspec- V on of the area for additional artifacts or midden soil; however, none were noted. Photographs are on file at LSA. Isolate #6. Near the far -eastern border of .the project area, the crew found a w ole, granitic mano. It was located on.a knoll overlooking Borrego Canyon Wash. Sparse vegetation surrounding this isolate gave the crew good ground visibility. No other indications of prehistoric use of the area were noted. Photographs are on file at LSA. Isolate V . Within a 20 by 15 meter area, the crew found three chert chunks. These, were located in a plowed field north of Irvi-ne Boulevard and far away from a natural outcropping, of chert material. ,However, these speci- mens showed no flake scars, the evidence of prehistoric use. No other arti= facts or midden soil was noted for this area. Isolate artifact forms have been prepared and submitted to the UCLA Arch- aeological Survey to document these finds. By definition,. isolated archaeo- logical finds are not focused areas of past human activity and therefore are not considered archaeological sites. Their distribution, however, may be indicative of exploitation of the area .and procurement activities. 'Because LJ 32 LEM the, research potential of isolated finds' is low and the, :artifacts themselves do, not constitute significant cultural- resources, the included .description and filed' locational information are considered -'adequate mitigation for these finds. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites The following sites were recorded during previous surveys and -were rein- vestigated. These sites lie within or immediately' adjacent to the present surveyed portions of the study area. These' previously recorded sites were updated as follows. CA-Ora-161. Originally, this site was recorded in 1966 and is. located near the intersection of Laguna Freeway and I-405.. The survey, crew relocated this site in the pasture south of the existing ranch house. They noted one flat granitic metate, one basin granitic metate, three complete granitic �manos, one metavolcanic hammerstone- and core, and a chert flake. Subsurface material is likely to be, found at this site. CA-Ora-349. This site was recorded on 'a- knoll overlooking - Sand -Can- yon Creek and consisted of manos, milling -stone fragments, and' hammerstones with a few shellfish fragments. The- survey crew relocated this site and noted oneChione shell fragment, one whole granitic mano, .and two metavolcanic cores on_ the surface. CA=0ra-361. T. C. Elliott and John Houser recorded this site, in.•1972 and noted metates, hammers"tones, manos, and cores at the site.• The crew noted two granitic, whole manos, one granitic mano fragment, and one granitic ham- mers.tone. Photographs of this site are on file at LSA. CA-Ora-383-. The survey crew relocated this site :approximately 175 meters northwest of the Sand Canyon powerline which- overlooks the Sand Canyon Reservoir. The survey crew recorded 1: granitic bowl fragment, two ground - stone fragments, fire -cracked rocks,' three pieces of burnt :bone, seven meta - volcanic flakes, three chert flakes, and two granitic flakes. Pecten. Chione, and Ostrea- shell fragments were also found at this 'site.. The site extends along an east/west dirt road for approximately 150 meters. CA-Ora-478. T. Cooley et al. recorded this site in 1974 i•n Hicks Canyon and noted that a dirt road had been graded across the east side of the site area. After careful inspection .it appears that continued use of the access, road disturbed this site area. The current survey crew did not observe any artifactural remains at this location. • 091 Lsa 'CA-Ora-494. This rock shelter is located on a. _steep slope,. overbook- ing an east west drainage. The survey crew relocated this shelter_ and noted midden soil with Pecten shellfish fragments, one possible metate fragment, and . a possible rock wall. Photographs are on, file at LSA. CA-Ora-495. Previously, CA=0ra-495- has been recorded as a possible rock cairn site which covers an extensive area.- The current survey crew, -how- ever, only observed at this site one bowl fragment, two granitic mano frag- ments, and four non -utilized flakes. While this definitely is indicative of the site, it reflects the additional investigation conducted by -CSRI (1982) at this site. They partially surface collected this site in order to mitigate any adverse impacts to -the site area from use- of the Southern Ca-lifornia Edison access road. CA-Ora.496. The- crew relocated this site on a disturbed knoll where a transmission tower and access road intersect. They found one granite -bowl fragment, two whole granitic manos, two granitic mano fragments, one metavol- canic flake, and one metavolcanic core.. Photographs are on file at LSA. CA-Ora-499. This site is situated west of Laguna Canyon Road and overlooks I-40 . It also falls within the Southern California Edison trans- mission -line boundaries. The crew observed only one whole granitic mano and one whol-e granitic hammerstone at this location.. Cultural Systems Research, Inc. (CSRI) also surface -collected at this site in 1982. No subsurface investigation was -conducted at that'ti'me. -Photographs are on file at LSA. CA-0ra-545-. This site is situated within the citrus grove north and east of Lambert Reservoir. T. Cool.ey in 1776 had noted on the surf -ace manos, metate fragments, hammerstones, choppers, -and -flake tools; however, our sur- vey failed to relocate this site. The agricultural operations have disturbed and possibly reburied this site. CA-Ora-601. This site is situated on a low knoll* southeast of Siphon Reservoir. The field crew noted eleven chert .flakes, one whole granitic mano, one granitic mano fragment, three metavolcanic flakes,.and I one, -red, jasper flake. The site lies immediately adjacent to a citrus grove. CA-Ora-734. This rock shelter is situated in Bommer. Canyon and con- tained a shellfish midden eroding out of the cave. The current crew relocated the shelter and noted in addition to the midden, one metavolcanic flake. Photographs are on. file at LSA. CA-Ora-735. This rock shelter is also located in Bommer Canyon, approximately 100 meters 'northwest of CA-Ora-734. The crew observed only L J 34 Lsa, mi dden soi 1 wi th 'shel 1 fi sh fragments ' around , the outsi de of the shel ter. Photographs are on file at LSA. CA-Ora-767 a and b. Recorded i,n 1978, the site - is situated on a low knoll and extends ..into the pasture area to the -northeast. The survey crew relocated this site and found eight grani ti-c manos; four granitic mano frag- ments, six granitic metate fragments, one .schist metate fragment., three fe1- site. cores, two metavolcanic flakes, and a few shell fragments. The si'te area remains in good condition. CA-Ora-803. The site consisted of a few lithic flakes and was located along a ridge slope in Shady -'Canyon. W.L: and J. Tadlock recorded this site- in 1976. Even with good ground visibility, the survey crew found no evidence of this site. CA-Ora-804. This site also was located in Shady Canyon along the ridge face and of a sparse .scatter of flakes. W.L. and J. Tadlock- .recorded this site in 1976. A careful check of the suspected location, how- ever, yielded no indication of a site.' CA-Ora-805. This, site was recorded fn Shady Canyon at the confluence of two drainages. The survey crew observed only one chert'flake in the rodent back dirt. It appears that more artifactual material may be buried at this location. CA-Ora7806. This site was recorded at the confluence of the Shady Canyon and Sand Canyon drainages. The survey crew relocated and noted a dense shell midden of Pecten, Chione, and O.strea,, and one chert-flake, four metavol- canic flakes, and one chert core fragment. 'Photographs are on file at LSA. CA-Ora-807. The- small rock shelter is located along the proposed Sand Canyon Road extension. The crew noted a possible midden deposit. Pecten and Chione shellfish framents were observed and one chest flake. Photographs are on fie at LSA. CA-Ora-808. This rock -shelter is also located along the Sand Canyon Road extension. The crew noted a shell midden deposit inside and in front of the shelter. They also noted one quartzite flake and one metavolcanic flake. The shelter opens to the northeast and is partially hidden by vegetation. CA-Ora-809. This rock shelter was locate-d above Sand Canyon Creek and contained chert flakes and a few shell fragments. The survey crew relo- cated the rock shelter; however, found no artifactual, or ecological material associated with it. • W CA-Ora-810.- This open site is located on the terrace that overlooks Sand Canyon Creek. It is located at the intersections of two power lines. The crew noted in the rodent back dirt 12 metavdlcanic flakes, eight chert flakes, three quartz flakes, and one Ostrea shell fragment. The rock ring feature noted previously -was not relocated. CA4ra-811. This rock shelter was located west of Rattlesnake Reser- voir. T. Cooley recorded this site in 1979 and noted the area had been graded for flood control purposes. The crew relocated the rock shelter, however, found no evidence of prehistoric use. No midden was observed or artifacts noted on the surface. CA-Ora-904. L. McCoy originally recorded this site on a ridge, finger and described the site as a thin lithic scatter. The current survey relocated the site and found one whole metate, two granitic.manos, two, granitic mano fragments, one granitic metate fragment, and one felsite flake. Photographs are on file at LSA. CA-Ora-1011. This site lies on top of a knoll that overlooks I405 and was described as a temporary -campsite. Observed artifactual material included three chert flakes, one granitic..mano, and one chert core. The shellfish fragments noted before were not found by the survey crew.. Photo- graphs are on file at LSA. In addition to the reinvestigated sites and the newly -recorded sites, the survey crew located in Shady Canyon a possible prehistoric petroglyph in a small cave. No other indications of prehistoric use exists inside or outside of the cave. The suspected petroglyph design has been scratched into the sur- face of the south wall of the cave. Presently, comparative research suggests similarity to those pictographs located at Vasquez Rocks in the Upper Santa Clara River (Los Angeles County) (King 1981) or to rock -art designs in Baja California. To clarify whether this etched design is prehistoric or not, fur- ther research has been initiated with the Rock Art Research Lab at UCLA.. This location then is archaeologically sensitive, however, an official State number will not be assigned until the prehistoric nature of the design has been veri- fied. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This inventory identified a total of 132 archaeological sites in the City of Irvine and its sphere of influence. The archival research reviewed more than 75 archaeological reports. The field reconnaissance covered more than 12,000 acres. It resulted in the discovery of three previously unrecorded sites, a possible petroglyph site, and numerous isolated finds. In addition, • 36 Lsa 25 previously recorded sites lying within or immediately adjacent to -the sur- vey areas were reinvestigated for site report updating.' The archival and field research are indexed by three USGS topographic base maps and a survey base chart (Appendix C). However, the potential for discovering additional archaeological. resources cannot be dismissed. Approximately 1,400 acres .remain .unsurveyed for cultural resources, where dense ground cover and fragil-e agricultural activities prevented inspection. Furthermore, investigation from a walk -over survey cannot always reveal subsurface remains. Known sites prove that the project area was long used by prehistoric inhabitants, and -there undoubtedly remain important, undetected archaeological sites. It is recommended that the remaining unsurveyed portions be systematically surveyed as soon as field con- ditions permit. Crop rotation begins in March and April, and would allow sur- vey of several of these areas. The archival and field investigations of this inventory indicate that there are important archaeological resource-s in the study area. However, the inventory does not address significance and cannot be used to determine eligi- bility under CEQA or the National Register nomination process under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1974. - Further research and study by qualified archaeologists under review of the HAP Committee, remains a require- ment for any development project which may. ffsturb archaeological resources. Although this i.nventory provides the basis -for organizing future i-nvesti- gati.ons, site -specific studies cannot- address some of the= important questions about our prehistoric past, questions which requ ire .intersite eomparisions. This i nventory ' serves as a source for deriving i ni ti al intersite Simi l.ari ti es and differences, and for initiati-ng re.giona.l hypotheses about prehistoric life-styles and conditions, which can .then be pursued in site -specific studies. It can. also provide a geographical and archaeological reference for coordinating the concurrent investigations at two -or .more separate sites. It establishes the local framework for recording of future surveys and excava- tions, and for identifying areas set aside in preservation. It also identi- fies for the City of Irvine the archaeological resources which may be impacted by future development plans. The data provided on the maps and in the, accom- panying report are intended to inform specific project planning teams and qualified archaeologists so necessary steps can be taken to ensure the protec- tion and preservation of the irreplaceable data rel ati n.g to the prehistory of Orange County. It is further recommended that the site -specific information, the maps in particular, should be considered highly confidential,, since dissemination of this information could be detrimental to the scientific/cultural value of these resources. Site -specific data should not be made -available as a public document. 37 Ua REFERENCES Allen, Lawrence P. 1981 The- Archaeology of- Locus B of CA-Ora-119, City of Irvine, Califor- nia. Archaeological -Resource Management Corp.. Archaeological Research, Inc. 1976 Archaeological Investigations of Sites CA-Ora-376 and'CA-Ora-377. Christ College Irvine, Irvine, CA. Archaeological Research, Inc. (ARI), 1977 Newporter North Archaeology. Draft Report on Limited Testing. On file at the UCLA Archaeological Survey, EI.R #0-46: Archaeological -Resource Management Corp. 1984 Letter Report on-CA-Ora-275._ On .file at the Environmental Manage- ment Agency, Orange County. Bean, Lowell and Katherine Siva Saubel 1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Banning,, CA: Malki Museum Press. Bean, Lowell and C. R.,Smith 1972 Gabrielino in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8', Califor- nia. W. C. Sturtevant, General Editor, pp. 538-549. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Bean, Lowell and Sylvia Vane 1979 Cultural Resources and the High Voltage Transmission Line .from San Onofre to Santiago Substation and Black Star. Canyon. On file at UCLA Archaeological Survey. Bingham, Jeffrey (Archaeological Research, Inc.) n.d. Test excavations for Ora-111 (Rancho San Joaquin - Irvine) Orange County, California, The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. Breece, Bill and Beth Padon 1982 Cultural Resource Survey . of Archaeological Resources; Foothill Transportation Corridor, Phase II. On file at UCLA Archaeological - Survey. Carrico, Richard L. (Westec Services) 1975 Test Trenching at San Joaquin Golf Course (Site CA-0 ra-111). The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. • M Carter, George F. 1957 Pleistocene Man at San Diego. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press - Chace, Paul, Aileen McKinney, George R. Mead- 1967 The Bonita Mesa IV Site (Ora-134) Near Newport 'Bay, Orange County, California in PCAS,'Quarterly 3:4, pp. 1-66, Costa Mesa, CA. Cooley, Theodore G. (Archaeological Resource Management Corporation) 1979 Archaeological Test -Level Investigations of CA-Ora-178. City of Irvine, CA. - Cottrell, Marie 1977 Archaeological Resources in the village of Woodbridge; Irvine, Cali- fornia in PCAS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 2.. Cottrell, Marie G. (Archaeological Management Corp.) 1978 . Test -Level Investigations, Conducted for Site CA-0ra=.121.' 'Fluor' Corporation, Newport -Beach, CA: Cottrell, Marie G. (Archaeol-ogical. Research•Inc.) 1976 Test -Level Investigations Conducted at Archaeological Sites CA-Ora- 196 and CA-Ora-197. Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine., CA. Cottrell, Marie G., David Van'Horn and Allan Schilz 1979 Report of Archaeological Test -Level Investigations Co.nducted at Sites CA-Ora-483 and CA -Ora 106. Larry Seeman and Associates, New- port Beach, CA. Cottrell, Marie G. 1979 Archaeological Investigations Conducted at CA-Ora-196, Irvine, CA. On file at UCLA_ Archaeological Survey, EIR #0-285. Cottrell, Marie G. and Kathleen C. Del Chario (Archaeological Resource Manage- ment Corp.) 1981 Archaeological Investigations of the Ora-244, -650, -651 sites. Prepared for Boyle Engineering, Newport Beach, CA. Cottrell, Marie and Adell.a Schroth (Archaeological Resource Management Corp.) 1980 Report of Test Excavations Conducted at CA-Ora-350, a Rock Shelter at Turtle Rock Enclave•V, Orange County, Cali.fornia. Larry Seeman Associates, Newport Beach, CA. • Craib, John (Archaeological Research, Inc.) 1977 The Archaeology of a Late Horizon Midden (CA-0 ra-197) on Newport Bay, Phase II. Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, CA. 0 39 Isa Cu.rtis,-f reddie 1959 Arroyo Sequit: Archaeological Investigations of a Late Coastal Site. in Los Angeles County, California. Paper No. 4, Archaeological Sur- vey Association of Southern California. Appendices'I and II. Cultural Systems.Research, Inc. 1982. Cultural Resources Data Recovery Program for the 23G-KV.transmission Line Rights -of -Way from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to Black Star Canyon and Santiago Substation and to Encina and Mission Valley Substations. Vol. I. Prepared -for Southern California Edi- son Company and San Diego Gas and'Electric Company. DeSautels, Roger J. (Archaeological Research, Inc.) n.d. -Archaeological Report, CA-Orar1,95, Orange County, California. Cali- fornia Department of Transportation District. Dixon, Keith 1974 Archaeological Resources and Policy Recommendations of Long Beach. City of Long Beach, CA. Dodge, William 1978 An Archaeological Assessment of Eight Cultural Localit.fes Along the San Onofre - Santiago,220-KY Transmission Line. Submitted to South- ern California Edison Company. Douglas, . Ronal d and Theo Mabry ( Archaeological Planning Collaborative) 1979 Excavations at CA-Ora-227, a Late Prehistoric Site in the San Joaquin Hills Region of Orange County, California. County of Orange, Santa Ana, CA. Douglas, Ronald 1980 Archaeological Investigation of a Late • Prehistoric -Horizon Site, CA- Ora-379, City -of Irvine, California. Archaeological Planning Col- laborative (LSA). Newport Beach, CA. 1980 Excavation at CA-Ora-386, A Millingstone Assemblage Site Overlooking Sand Canyon Wash, Orange County, California. LSA, Newport Beach, CA. Douglas, Ronald (Larry Seeman and Associates) 1981 Archaeological Resource Survey Northern'Coastal Hills Planning Area, Orange County, -California, Newport Beach, CA. 40 Lsa Drover., Christopher E. (Archaeological Research, Inc.) 1975 Test Excavations ,of Lower .Bonita Creek. Pacific Telephone, Newport Beach, CA. Ellis, Robert R. (Archaeological Research, Inc.) 1973 Report, Archaeological Test Excavations. at Site Ora-121, Orange County, California., Beckman Instruments Company, Newport Beach, CA. 1913 Archaeological - Report of Test Excavations at Site Ora-373, Orange County, California. The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. Gill, Pamela M. (Master's Thesis) n.d. A Report of the Excavation at CA-Ora-120. California State University, Fullerton. Prepared for The Irvine Company by - Archaeological Resource Management Corporation. He.izer, R. F. 1968 - The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid' s Letters of 1852. Southwest Museum Papers 21, Los Angeles. Howard, Jerry Brian 1979 Archaeological Investigations Conducted at CA-Ora-373, An Encinitas Tradition Site in Orange County, California. Archaeological Research, Inc., Goleta, California and Archaeological Planning Col- laborative, Newport Beach, CA. Hines, Phillip 1975 Faunal Analysis of Site, CA-Ora-236:. On file at the PCAS Research Library. Hurd,. Gary Si. 1980 Test Excavation for CA-Ora-116. University of California, Irvine, CA. n.d. Statistical Analysis of Marine Mollusea recovered from CA-Ora-116. On file at the PCAS Research Library. Johnston, B. E. 1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles. Kaldenburg, Russell H., an,d Charles S. Bull 1976 Archaeological Investigations at the World Medical Foundati-on Site, . Orange County; California. Prepared for The Iry the Company, Newport Beach, CA. 41 Lsa King, Linda 1981 The Incised Petroglyph Sites at Aqua Dulce, Los Angeles County Cali- fornia in Messages From" the Past,, C. W. Mei-ghan, editor. Monograph XX Institute of Archaeology. University of California, Los Angeles. King, T. F., Michael J. Moratto, and N..Nelson Leonard III 1973 Recommended Procedures for Archaeological Impact Evaluation. Joint Publication for the Society for California Archaeology and the Uni- versity of California, Los Angeles. Ms. on file at UCLA Archaeolog- ical Survey. Koerper, Henry C. 1981 Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bay Area and Environs, Orange County, California. Ph.D: dissertation, .U.niversity of California, Riverside. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Rdprtnted by Dover Publications, New York, 1976.) Leonard, N. Nelson III 1966 Ven-70 and Its Place in the Late Period' in the Western Santa Monica Mountains. UCLA, Archaeological Survey Annual Report, Vol. 8. 1975 Rancho San Joaquin Planned Community: Draft Environmental Impact Report, C.P.B.R. The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. Mabry, Theo N. and Thomas T. Taylor 1979 Test -Level Investigations Conducted on Ora-379., Irvine, California. Archaeological Planning Collaborative, Newport,Beach, CA. Mabry, Theo (Archaeological Research., Inc.) 1978 Test -Level. Investigations Conducted at CA-Ora-228,' Turtle Rock, Irvine, California. Broadmoor Homes, Irvine, CA. Mabry, Theo 1979 Updated Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance with Miti- gation Recommendations, Quail H-ill Planning Area. On file at LSA, Newport Beach, CA. Mabry, Theo N., and Ronald D. Douglas (Archaeological Planning Collaborative) • 1979 A Test -Level Investigation of CA-Ora-729, Bonita Canyon Creek, City of Irvine, California. City of Irvine, Newport Beach, CA. 42 Lsa Mabry, Theo (Archaeological Planning Collaborative) 1979 Assessment of Ora-373, Home Improvement Center; Ir.vi.ne, California. .Larry Seeman Associates, Inc., Newport Beach, CA. 1979 Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance, Yale Avenue Right - of -Ways, Irvine, California. On file at'UCLA Archaeological Survey. McGimsey,'Charles R. III and Hester A. Davis (Eds.) 1977 The Management of Archaeological Resources in The Airlie House Report, a special publication for the Society for American Archaeol- ogy. Mitchell, Laura L. 1976 National Register Application for Rancho San. Joaquin Headquarters and House (CA-Ora-111.) On file at the PCAS Research Library. Moriarty, James R. 1966 Culture Phase Divisions Suggested'by Typological Change, Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating -at San Diego in Anthropological Journal of Canada 7(3.):1-18, Mu.nz, Philip A. and'D. D. Keck 1959 A California -Flora. Berkeley: University of California Press. Radon, Beth (LSA) 1982 Cultural Resources Survey for General Plan Amendment., Bommer and Shady Canyons. On file at UCLA Archaeological Survey. 1983 Assessment of Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, Irvine Medical Complex, Irvine., California. 1983 Archaeological Site Update for CA-Ora-815. On fil.e at UCLA Archaeo- logical Survey. 1984 Archaeological Site Updates for CA-0-ra-761 and -762. On file at UCLA Archaeological Survey. n.d. Archaeological Assessment of CA-Ora-391. Report in preparation. Irvine, CA. Rice, Glen E. and Marie Cottrell (Archaeological Research, Inc.) 1976 Report of Excavations at CA-Ora:-111, Locus II in Pacific Coast Ar- chaeological Society Quarterly, 1973, 12:3. • a • 43 Lsa Rice, Glen E. 1976 Defining the Southern Perimeter of Ora-575. Archaeological Re-, search, -Inc., Newport Beach, CA. 1976 Test Investigations at Ora-119, Locus B. On file at UCLA Archaeo- logical.Survey, EIR #0-409. 1976 A Test Investigation -of Ora-119, Locus C, and a.Report on a Rock - Feature in Locus A. On file at PCAS Research Library. Rogers, David B. 1929 Prehistoric Man .of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Rogers, Malcom J. 1929 The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau in American Anthropologist 31:454-467. _ Rogers, Spencer 1974 An Ancient Human Skeleton Found at Del Mar, California. San Diego Museum Paper No. 7. Schroth, Adella 1979 Radiocarbon Dates for Orange County. Ms. on file at UCLA Archaeo- logical Survey. I Scientific Resources Surveys, Inc. 1978- Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Report on the Pro- posed Bee and Round Canyons Landfill Disposal Stati-on Located in the County of Orange, California. Prepared for Lockman and Associates/ Toups Corporation Orange, CA. Sparkman, P. S. 1908 The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. University of California Publi- cations in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 187-234, Berkeley. Stickel, Gary and Lois Weinman 1978 Los Angeles -Long Beach Harbor Areas Cultural Resource Survey: Los Angeles County, CA. Published by U-.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los .Angeles District. • 44 Tadlock, W. L. and J. Tadlock 1978 Archaeological' Element - 'Environmental Impact Report,, ROB Engineer- ing, Inc., El Toro (McNiff). On file at UCLA Archaeological Survey, EIR #0-207. Treganza, A, E. and C. G. Malamud 1950 The Topanga Culture: First Season's Excavation' of the Tank Site, 1947. Anthropological Records, University of California 12(4). Van Horn, D. M. and J.R: Murnay_(Archaeological Associates) 1977 .Archaeological Test Excavations at Ora-227, 275, -619, and -620 in the Coyote Canyon Refuse Disposal Station, County of Orange, Cali- fornia. County of Orange, Santa Ana, CA. Walker, E. F. 1951 Five Prehistoric- Archaeological Sites in Los Angeles .Coun.ty, Cali- fornia. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary, Publication Fund,, Vol. 6., L'os Angeles. Wal 1 ace, W. J . 1954 . The Little Sycamore Site and the Early Milling Stone Cultures of Southern California in American Antiquity 20:112-123: 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology in Southwestern Journal for Anthropology 11:214-270, Albuquerque, NM. Warren, C. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Cali- fornia Coast, on Prehistory in the Western United States. Eastern New Mexico University, Contributions in Anthropology. 1(3):1-14, edited by C. Irwin -Williams. Warren, C., 0. L.-True, and A. Eudey 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of of California, Los Angeles, 1960-1961, Los Angeles.. Western San Diego County. University Archaeological Survey Annual Report Weil, Ed (Larry Seeman and Associates) 1981 Pelican Hill Road Extension, The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. Westec Services, Inc. 0 1979 Archaeological Salvage Program at CA-Ora-508, Irvine, California. Prepared for The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. • 45 Wa 1979 Archaeological Salvage Program at Locus B and the Pe-ripheral Sector of Locus A, Ora-287 (121)-, Irvine, 'California. The Fluor Corpora- tion, Irvine,.CA. 1975 Test Trenching at San Joaquin Golf Course (Site-CA-Ora-111). The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. 1980 The National Register Assessment Program of Cul'tura-1 -Resource's of the 230-KV Transmission Line Right -of -Way from San Onofre, Nuclear Generating Station to Black Star Canyon and Santiago Substation -and to Encina and Mission Valley Substation; Cultural Resource Report, Volume 1. On file at UCLA Archaeological Survey. Wi-nterbourne, John (WPA) 1938 Report of the San Joaquin Home Ranch Excavation. Santa .Ana City Schools, Santa Ana, CA. 1938 Report on Bonita Mesa, San Joaquin Gun Club and. Corona del- Mar Sites. Santa Ana City Schools, Santa Ana, CA. On file -at the PCAS Research Library. 1938 Report on the Bonita Site or Bonita Sheep Camp. Santa Ana City Schools, Santa Ana College Library. On file. at the PCAS Research Library. • APPENDIX A APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS FOR ARCHAEOLOGICA RESOURCES i C` Lso • a • Lsa RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS Relevant State and Federal laws which pertain to archaeological resources located on public lands are summarized as follows: California Environmental Quality Act. of. 1970 (P.R.C. Section 21001) Requires that cultural resources be 'considered in assessing the environmental impact of proposed projects within the State and that examples of the major periods of California- history will be pre- served. California Publi-c Resources Code-= Ghapter 1.7, Section-5097.5 Prohibits the knowing destruction of objects of antiquity with- out a permit (expressed permission) on public lands, and provides for criminal sanctions. California Penal Code, Title 14, Part 1, Section 622-1/2 Provides that any person,'not the owner thereof, who willingly destroys or injures objects of archaeological or historical value;. whether on public or private land, is guilty of a misdemeanor. California Administrative Code, Title 14, Secti,on 4307 States- that, no person shall remove, injure,, disfigure, deface or destroy any object,of paleontological, archaeological or histori- cal � interest or value: Section 4309 provi-des that, if thought to be fn. the best interest of the State Park System, ,the director may grant permission to remove, disturb, etc. objects of antiquity. California Public Resources Code - Ghap_ter 1332, Section 5091.9 Establishes the California Native American Heritage Commission to. make recommendations to encourage private property owners to .pro= tect and preserve sacred places in a natural state and to allow app.roproi ate access to Native Americans for ceremonial' or spi ri tua-1 activities. The Commission is authorized to as-sist Native Americans in obtaining appropriate access to sacred places on public land-s,. and to aid State agencies in any negotiations with Federal agencies, for the protection of Native American sacred places on Federally - administered lands in California. • 2 Lsa The Antiquity Act of-1906 as Amended This act sets forth the Federal Government's basic principle of protection, preservation, and public -availability of archaeo.logi- ca-1 resources. The act provides for Federal control of all archaeological resources on Federally -owned or controlled land. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 This act declares a national policy to preserve historic (including prehistoric) sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the public. The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1935 This act provides for the survey and necessary research of archaeological sites affected by. the construction of dams and resultant reservoir areas. This act may affect .treatment plants, storage plants, and rights -of -way as well as dam and reservoir areas. The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as Amended This act provides for an expanded National Register of dis- tricts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture- and makes provisions for matching funds to help acquire and/or preserve them. This act also affects properties eligible for listing. The National Environmental Policy Act .(NEPA). Provides for the protection or enhancement of the cultural environment. "An act for the preservation of American Antiquities." The National Archaeological/Historical Preservation Act of 1974mended This act provides Federal agencies with methods of mitigati-ng. impacts of their undertakings upon those his.tori.c properties that contain scientific, prehistoric, or archaeological data. Public Law 95-341; .92 Stat. 469; 42 U.S.C. 1996 • This law provides for American Indian religious freedom and access to traditional Native American sacred sites. 0 APPENDIX B RESUMES 41 • Lsa, Natural Resource Management Transportation Engineering Environmental AssessmentLsa. . Community Planning E.LIZABET_H F.. PADON PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS -AND EXPERIENCE EDUCATION. University of Wisconsin -Milwaukee, Master of Science in Anthropology, summa cum .laude, Milwaukee, WI, 1.977. Beloit College, Bachelor of Arts 'in International Relations, -cum laude, Beloit, WI, 1970. ARCHAEOLOGICAL -FIELD TRAINING University of Wisconsin -Milwaukee, WI (Crawfish River Archaeological Field School), 1976, Lynne Goldstein, Director. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Principal Investigator, LSA, Inc.,- environmental planning consultants, Newport Beach, CA, 1981-present. Research Collaborator, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles County, 1980=present. Consulting Archaeologist, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Riverside Counties, 1979-1981. District Archaeologist, CalTrans District 7, Los Angeles, CA, 1980-1981. Survey Archaeologist, UCLA State Historic Preservation Regional Office, Los Angeles, CA, 1980. Archaeologist, U.S. Army Corps 'of Engineers- - Los Angel -es District, Los Angeles, CA, 1979-1980. Research Ass.istant, Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica, 1979. Archaeological Research Assistant, UCLA Archaeological Survey, Los Angeles, CA, 1977-1978. • Numerous field crew member and supervisory positions on professional archaeological projects throughout Southern California, Wisconsin, and Costa Rica, 1976-present. ❑ 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 555 • Newport Beach, California 92660 • (714) 640-6363 0 2606 Eighth Street 9 Berkeley, California 94710 • (415)' 841-6840 . • Elizabeth F. Padon -Page 2 Um PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES -Conducting archaeological research,projects with pri nc"i.p"al .responsi bi 1 i ty as follows: Administer the Cultural Resources Division.(CRM) of LSA, and oversee/ coordinate all of its archaeological, historical, and paleontological activities and services. . Prepare CRM research designs, literature reviews, and background syn- theses. . Conduct archaeological field surveys, "excavations, and laboratory anal- yses. . Prepare National Register nominations, Historic Property,. Survey "reports, final- re ports-on"archaeological investigations, and CRM sec" tions of EIRs and EISs. Develop,. execute, and monitor preservation strategies or mitigation programs for known cultural resources. . Provide technical and legal CRM consulting services at the, planning stages of development programs. . Coordinate CRM public outreach and service activi-ti-es. . Provide expert testimony in public"hearings and legal proceedings. PUBLICATIONS Archaeological Reports and Manuscri-pts on File at UCLA: Los -Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties. Occasional- Paper 10, .Institute of Archaeo- logy, University of.California, Los Angeles, 1982. Author or co-author of numerous professional archaeological site survey and excavation reports (examples available upon request). Cultural Resource Management Track Coordinator and Chairperson at the State Historic Preservation Conference, May 1983, Orange; CA. SELECTED REPORTS Cultural Resource Assessment of Forster Ranch, San Clemente -,,California, LSA, Inc., October 1984. • Elizabeth F. Padon Page 3 LCM Archaeological Testing at CA-Ora-660, Cameo del Mar, Orange County, Cali- fornia, co-authored with Bill Breece, LSA, Inc., August 1984 Historical Review of The Irvine Company Agricultural Headquarters, Irvine, California, LSA, Inc., July 1 . Archaeological Resource Assessment, Ridgway/Ahmanson Project, Riverside County, California, LSA, Inc., July . Cultural. Resource.. Assessment, Planning Area 34B, Orange County, Cali- fornia, LSA, Inc., June 1984. Assessment of Archaeological Resources, Diamond Bar Project, Los Angeles - County, California, LSA, .Inc., May 1984. Historic Property Survey Report for the Proposed Sand_ Canyon/I--405 'Interchange, City of -Irvine,. LSA, Inc., April 1984. Archaeological Field Review, Villa a 19A .Project, City of Irvine, Cali- fornia, LSA, Inc., March 19b4. Archaeological Reconnaissance, Carmel Valley Ranch Area F, Carmel, Cali- fornia, LSA, Inc., March 1 . Cultural Resource Assessment, Bressi Ranch, San Diego County, California, LSA*, Inc., February 1984. Su l-emental Archaeological. Assessment, Oak Tree West Project, Riverside County, California, LSA, Inc., January 1984. Historic Property Report, Proposed Yale Avenue/I-5 Overcrossin ,,Irvi-ne, California, LSA, Inc., December 1983. Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment, Salt Creek Disposal Site, Orange County, California, LSA, Inc., October 198.3. Archaeological Data Recovery at Locus B, CA-SDi-7197, San Diego County, California, LSA, Inc., September 1983. Cultural Resource Overview, La Quinta Redevelopment Project, Riverside County, Ca i ornia;"LSA, Inc., August 1983. Research Design for: the Data Recovery Program at CA-Ora-166, Newport 'LSA, Inc., June Beach, California, co-authored with. E. Jane Rosenthal, 1983. • Elizabeth F. Padon Page 4 Lsa Archaeological Assessment, Proposed Upper Newport, Bay Bicycle/Equestrian Trail, Newport Beach, California, LSA, Inc., June 1983. Archaeolo ical Assessment of a- Portion. of Rancho' -San Clemente, San Clemente, California, LSA, Inc., May 198U. An Initial Survey of Historic Resources With tn'the City of Irvine and Its Sphere of Influence,-, LSA, Inc., Fe ruary . Archaeolo ical Testing at CA-Riv-1801-,, Green. River Meadow Project, Riverside County, California, co-authoredFo-auth6red with Bi I I Breece, LSA, Inc., October 1982. Cultural Resources Survey, Archaeological' -Resources, Foothill' Transporta- tion Corridor, Phase II, LSA, Inc., October 19 2� . Archaeological Assessment of Woodlake Villa aGeneral', Plan Amendment, LSA, Inc., June ME Cultural Resource Survey for General ,P-lan Amendment, Bonner and, Shady Canyons, Orange County, California, LSA, I.nc., June 1982. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND ACCREDITATION - Society of Professional -Archaeologists ('SOPA) Society for American Archaeology (SAA) Pacific Coast Archaeol'ogical.Society (PCAS) Society for California Archaeology (SCA) UCLA Friends of Archaeology Southwest Anthropological Association National Trust for Historic Preservation Los Angeles Conservancy Environmental Management Agency., Orange County • Natural Resource Management Transportation Engineering Environmental Assessment Lsa Community Planning WILLIAM H.'BREECE FIELD DIRECTOR SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE EDUCATION University of 'Cal i forni a, Los Angeles, Master of Arts in Archaeology, _Los Angeles, CA, 1977."= California State University, Long Beach, Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, Long Beach, CA, 1973. . PROFESS.IONAL EXPERIENCE Principal Investigator, Environmental' Science Associates, Environmental Planning Consultants, San Francisco, CA, 1981. Principal Investigator and Project Archaeologist, Westec Services, Inc., Tustin, CA, 1978-1981. Consultant, G.rabhorn Engineering.; San Diego, CA, 1978 " Section Chief, University of Bordeaux, Anquitaine Region, France, 1976- 1977. Field Foreman, UCLA in Solvieux, France, 1973-1974. Laboratory Technician, UCLA in Solvieux, France, 1973-1974.. Field crew member, UCLA Archaeological Survey, Los Angeles, CA, 1972. PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Conducting archaeological research projects with principal responsibility for: Data analysis and write-up Directing field and laboratory operations (survey and excavation) Personnel management and supervision Feasibility studies and cost analyses for cultural .resource manage- ment ❑ 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 555 - Newport Beach, Califomia 92660 - (714) 640-6363 0 2606 Eighth Street - Berkeley, California 94710 - (415) 841-6846 William H. Breece Page 2 UM PUBLICATIONS Author or co-author of numerous professional. archaeological site survey and excavation reports (examples avail -able upon request). PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND ACCREDITATION Society of Professional Archaeologists. San Luis Obispo County Archaeologica-1 Society Society for California Archaeology (SCA). Society for American Archaeology '(SAA) Phi Kappa Phi - National Honor Society p; 500-Newport Center Drive, Suite 600 Newport Beach, California 92660 phone- (714) 640-6363 L mca ❑ 2606 Eighth Street Berkeley, California 94710 phone (415) 841-6840 Community Planning n Natural Resource Management C Environmental Assessment WAYNE HOWARD BONNER FIELD ARCHAEOLOGIST SUMMARY'OF QUALIFICA-TIONS AND EXPERIENCE EDUCATION California State, University, Long Beach, Master of Arts in Anthropology, specializing in Archaeology, Long Beach, CA (in' progress). California State College, Long Beach, Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, Long Beach, CA, 1970. E1 Camino Community College, Associate of Arts, Torrance, CA, 1969. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Laboratory director, Puvunga Village test excavation project, Los Angeles, CA, 1982. Research assistant under Dr. Jane Rosenthal,. Los Angeles, CA-, 1982. Director of Rock Art Archives, Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 1980. Site Director, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1979. Laboratory assistant, Los Angeles County 'Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles, CA, 1978. Field crew member, various site excavations, under direction of Dr. Clement Meighan, Los Angeles County and Ventura County, CA, 1975-78. PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Assistant field director Laboratory technician Field cartography Artifact analysis Archaeological site form preparation • ❑ 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 525 Newport Beach, California 92660 phone (714) 640-6363 Lsa❑ 2927 Newbury Street, Suite C Berkeley, California 94703 phone (415)841-6840 Community Planning , ❑ - Natural Resource Management ❑ Environmental Assessment COL-E J. PARKER FIELD RCHAEOL G ST SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE EDUCATION. California State University, Long Beach, Master of Arts in Archaeology, Long Beach, CA (in progress),, California State University, Long Beach, Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, Long Beach, CA, 1976. Goldenwest College, Associate of Arts, Huntington Beach., CA; 1973'. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 41 Field crew member, Recon, Regional, EnVironmental Consultants, San Diego-, CA, 1980-1981. Research assistant, California State University, Long Beach., CA, 1980- 1981. Field crew member, Archaeological Resource Management Corporation, Garden Grove, CA, 1979-1980. Field crew. member, Pacific Coast Archaeologi-cal'Society, Santa Ana, CA, 1979.- PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Field cartography .Artifact analysis Archaeological site form preparation ❑ S00 Newport Center Drive, Suite S2S Newport Beach, California 92660 phone (714) G.40-6363 0 2927 Newbury Street, Suite Berkeley, California 94703 phone (41S) 841-G840 Community Planning C Natural Resource Management C Environmental Assessment JODY NEAL-POST FIELD ARCHAEULOGIST SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS AND -EXPERIENCE EDUCATION California State University, Dominguez Hills, Certification in Cultural Resource Management, Carson,. -CA, 1980. California State University, Dominguez Hills,. Bachelor of Arts in Human Studies/Ethnography, Carson, CA, 1979. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Field Crew Member, excavation at site CA-Sh-a-782, California State Uni- versity, Chino, 1982. Staff Archaeologist, U.S.- Department of Agriculture,. Shasta -Trinity National Forest, -CA, Summer 1982. Assistant District Archaeologist, Bureau -of Land Management, Redding, CA, Spring 1982. Field Photographer and Ethnographer, Anthro-Graphics, New York, India, Nepal, Spain, Portugal, -and Morocco, 1981=82. Field Crew Member, Mojave Desert survey, Applied Conservation Technology, Fullerton, CA, 1979. Ethnographer, project in Goa, India, January -July 1978. PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Field photographer Topographic map interpretations Preparation of archaeological site record forms r� ❑ 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 525 Newport Beach, California. 92660 phone (7.14) 640-6363 ❑ 2927 Newbury Street, Suite C Lsa Berkeley, California 94703 phone (415)841-6840 Community Planning ❑ Natural Resource Management ❑ Environmental Assessment WILLIAM A. SAWYER FIELD ARCH EOLOGI-T SUMMARY OF QUALI I ATIONS AND EXPERIENCE EDUCATION California State University, Long Beach, Bachelor of Arts in Anthropol- ogy, Long Beach, CA,'1980. Associate of Arts Degree, Santa Ana College., Santa.Ana, CA, 1976. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Crew Member, San Clemente Island survey, Chambers Consultants and -Plan- ners, Stanton, CA, 1980. Crew Chief, Harper. Dry Lake survey, California State University, Long Beach, 1980. Crew Member; excavation and surface collection at sites CA-SDi-4276, CA- SDi-5593, CA-SDi-5594, and CA-SDi-5595 i.n San Diego, CA, 197.9. Crew Member, survey of Prado Dam Regional Park, California State Univer- sity, Long Beach, CA, 1979. Crew Member, excavation at site CA-Ora-119, California State University-, Long Beach, 1978. PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Preparation of archaeological site record forms Artifact analysis Field photographer PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Society for American Archaeology Society for -California Archaeology Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Malki Museum Association Southwest Museum Association Natural History Museum Associate MARIAN PARKS 233 MORNING CANYON CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 (714) 760-07-98 RESUME F,ducation B.A., University of Southern California California Teacher's Credential, University of California, Los Angeles M.A., American History, Claremont'Graduate School, Claremont, California Courses- in history and archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Irvine, and California State University, Long Beach Archaeological field class, California State University, Long Beach, under Dr,. Maroaret- (Weide) Lyneis Archaeological and Historical Experience - Research National Archives in. Seattle, Laguna Niguel, Washington, D.C. County records in California, Illinois, Ohio, Washington: Tax assessments, Recorder's Of+ice (deeds, births, deaths, trusts), labor rolls, mining claims, probates, directories, court cases, etc. Archival collections and newspapers in Chicago: Newbery Library, Historical Society, Public Library Canada: British Columbia Provincial Archives Cincinnati: Historical Society, Public Library Mother Lode: Mariposa, Sonora, Stockton Philadelphia:1-averford.College Quaker Collection Sacramento: State Library and Archives San Francisco: Bancroft, Sutro, California Historical Society Seattle: The Libraries of the'University of.Jashino on-, Collections at Port To:msend and Port Angeles Southern California: Honnold, Claremont; University -of California, Irvine and Los Angeles;'University of Southern California; Los Angeles County -Natural History Museum (History Division); Sherman Library, Corona Del Mar Archaeolo~ical Excavations Middle East and England, artifacts cataloguing San Buenaventura Fission Project, Ventura, California: Greenwood and Associates, lab technician New Melones Reservoir Prcjecty Sonora, California: 111 OTEC, Dr. idichael J. Foratto, Principal Invest irZator, Department o:' Interior contract. . Mother Lode historical research and historical artifacts, under o seasons Greenwood & Associates, t:•r Included two weeks' research in Salt bake City at the Mormon archives for Mormon sites in the project area. The writing. will appear in the Interior final. report. Shasta/I-5 Project, Lakehead, California. "INF=C, Dr. Christopher Raven, Principal Investigator-, Caltrans contract, testing phase. Historical artifacts cataloguing. Development of the historical computer code for the prehaistoric test phase of the project. Work under Raven. Preservation Efforts Newport Beach, California. City Environmental Committee representative for history and archaeology Orange County, California. Preservation of historical and archaeological data along the Aliso Water Management Agency pipeline project. . Affiliations Society for California'.Archaeology, Society for American Archaeology, Pacific Coast Archaeological Society (board), American Historical Association/Pacific Coast Branch, Western Historical Society, Historical Society of Southern California (board).,- Historical Society of .Orange County (ex board), Chinese Historical Society of Southern California Literature .41 In 1979 presented a paper at the Society for California Archaeology on the preservation efforts indicated above. In 1980 prepared a paper for the Department of Parks and Recreation, California, under John McAleer, historian, on the Japanese. use of state park area, the newly acquired Crystal Cove State Park, Orange*Zounty. The research included local and Irvine Company records and oral interviews. In 1984 an article to appear in the Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, Spring 1984 on the one -hundred -year history of the society. . The Department of Interior work is cited above. • APPENDIX C INDEX TO THE BASE MAP OF SURVEYED AREAS r� • Lsa il • Lsa INDEX TO THE BASE MAP OF -SURVEYED AREAS No. Area Survey Reports Included Within the Numbered Area 1 Padon, Beth and Bill Breece, Archaeological Resource Inven- tory, 1984, City of Irvine and Its Sphere of I-nfluence. 2 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1978, Archaeological and Historical Report on the Proposed Bee & Round Canyons Landfill Disposal Station. Steve E. Colegrove, 1972, Village of Valley View .(letter report). Public Antiquities Salvage Team, California State University 'Tentative at Fullerton, 1976, Archaeological Resources of the Coyote Canyon Landfill Replacement Site in Central Orange County.. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1978, Cultural Resources Report - Preliminary Assessment on the San Diego, Creek Water- shed in Hicks Canyon, Rattlesnake Creek Wash, San Diego Creek, and the San Joaquin Marsh. Bill Breece and Beth Padon, 1982, Cultural Resource Survey of Archaeological Resources, 'Foothi.11 Transportation Corridor, Phase II. E. Gary Stickel, 1979, Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Water Faci-l-i ti es and the-, County of Los Angeles, and Orange -County Sanitation District Proposed Round Canyon. Site. 3 (El Toro Marine Base) 4 N. Nelson Leonard III, 1975 Archaeological Impact Evaluation: Park Place.' Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1976, Archaeological- Survey Report on Tentative Tract No. 9379, Lots'A-G and A-5 of Tract No. 282 in the City of Irvine. C7 2 LCM No. Area Survey Reports Included Wi-thi.n the Numbered Area Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1976, Archaeological Survey Report on a Four Acre P-a�rcel of Land Located in Irvine Indus- trial Area, Irvine, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1976, Archaeological Survey Report on The North Irvine Assessment District Located in the "Frances" Area of the City of Irvine. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1977 Archaeological Survey Report on Tentative Tract 9623 Located in the City of Irvine.. Archaeological Planni-ng, Collaborati"ve, 1980, Archaeological Records Search and FJ el-d Survey, Northwood Project Sites No. 1 and 2, City of Irvine. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.,.1976, Archaeological Report on the Survey of Meadow Mobile Homes Proposed'Development "The Groves" Located i-n the Frances Area, North Irvine. Archaeological Planning Collaborative, 1979, Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey, Orangetree Park 20-Acre Initial Study, Irvine. Michael L. Ahlering, A Discussion of Scientific Cultural Resources in Relation to the North Irvine Precise Land Use Plan. LSA, Inc.; 1981, Cultural Resources Records Search and Field Survey, Northwood Project Sites 3 and 4, City of Irvine., LSA, Inc., 1982, Historic Property Survey for Proposed Improvements to Jeff rey.Road and I-5, Irvine. 5 Marie G. Cottrell, 1976, Archaeological Record Search and Field Survey of Sites_ No. 1, 2, .and 5, ,North Irvine (letter report). Marie 'G. Cottrell, 1977, Village 10 - Records Search (letter report). Steve E. Colegrove, 1972, Village of Valley View (letter 0 report). • 3 Wa No. Area Survey Reports Included Within the Numbered -Area Michael L. Ahlering, A Discussion of Scientific Cultural Resources in Relation to the North Irvine Precise Land Use Plan. 6 Marie G. Cottrell, 1978, Archaeological Resources Located in Village 14, Irvine (fetter report). Laura Lee Mitchell, 1976 Woodbei-ge Observer'Survey Project. Steve E. Colegrove, 1973, Central Village "A" East Irvine Business and Industrial Center and Regional Commercial Tri- angle Scientific Resources Survey (letter report). Theo N. Mabry, 1979, Culver/I-405 and Harvard./I=405 Area Archaeological Report Inventory"(letter report). Theo N. Mabry, 1979, Archaeological Record Search, and Recon- naissance, Yale Avenue Rights -of -Ways, Irvine, CA. Marie G. Cottrell, 1978, Culver Drive/I-405 Interchange Improvements (letter report). Marie G. Cottrell, 1976, Walk -Over Survey Central Village "A" (letter report). Beth Padon, 1984, Archaeological Resource Assessment Irvine Industrial Complex -East, Phase IV, Irvine. N. Nelson Leonard III, 1975, Archaeol-ogical Resources of Rancho San Joaquin. 7 Beth Padon, 1983, Assessment of Archaeological Resources, RV Storage Project, Irvine. Marie Cottrell; 1980, Walk -Over Survey of 25 Acres, Southwest Corner of Sand Canyon and AT&SF Railroad',in- City, of Irvine.. 8 Theo N. Mabry, 1979, Archaeological Records 'Search and Recon- naissance Survey, Orange Tree Park 20=Acre Initial Study, Irvine. • n �J 0 4 No Area Survey Reports Included Within the Numbered Area 0 LSA, Inc., 1981, Cultural Resource Assessment Village 12 Development Site. Marie G. Cottrell,- 1976, Walk -Over, Survey Central Village. "A" (letter report). Steve E. Colegrove, 1973, Proposed Orange tree Acres Planned Community-0 etter report). Marie G. Cottrell, 1976, Archaeological Survey on San Diego Creek Flood Control Channel (letter report). Marie G. Cottrell, 1977, Archaeological Survey Report on Vil- lage 12 and Village 14. Beth Padon, 1984, Cultural Resource. Assessment, Irvine Center Project, Irvine. Marie G. Cottrell, 1978,, Alton/Santa Ana -Freeway Interchange Construction and Irvine Center Drive San Diego Freeway Inter- change Expansion: Archaeological Resources Review (letter report). LSA, Inc., 1981, Historic Property Survey, Alton Parkway/1-5 .Interchange and Irvine Center Drive/I-405 Interchange, Irvine. Theo Mabry, 1979, Archaeological Survey, Alton and Irvine Center D-rive Interchange Improvements (letter report). Steve E. Colegrove, 1973; Central Village "A" East Irvine Business and Industrial Center and Regional Commercial Tri- angle (letter report). Jill Weisbord, 1981 Cultural Resource Survey of the Irvine Center D.A. Village 13. Beth Padon, 1983, Assessment of Archaeological and Paleonto- logical Resources, Irvine Medical Complex, Irvine. Beth Padon, 1983, Assessment of Archaeological and Paleonto- logical Medical Center, Irvine, CA. • Ll 0 �i Lsa- No: Area Survey Reports Included Within the Numbered Area 10 Theo N. Mabry, 1978, Archaeological Records Search and Recon- naissance Survey, Irvine Industrial Complex -East, Phase 2 and 3 Areas, Irvine.. Beth Padon, 1984, Cultural Resource Assessment., Planning Area 34B. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., 1977, Archaeological Survey Report on a 34-Acre Parcel- in the E1 Toro Area. 11 LSA, Inc., 1981 Cultural Resource Assessment Irvine Meadows Amphitheatre Development.Site, Irvine. Marie G. Cottrell, 1978, Report- of Archaeological Resources Survey on Laguna and Peters Canyons. Charles N. Irwin, 1974, Laguna Canyon Survey: John Romani, 1984, Archaeological Survey -Report for the -Widen- ing of Route Ora-133, Between Canyon Acres Drive and I-405 PM. 12 Theo N. Mabry, 1979, Updated Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance with Mitigation Recommendations, Quail Hill Planning Area, Irvi.ne. Archaeological Planning Collaborative, 1979, Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey, Turtle -Rock Enclaves 6 and 7. Steve E. Colegrove, 1-973, Turtle Rock 'Pla-nning Area (letter report). LSA, Inc., 1981 Archaeological and Paleon.tol'ogical Resource Assessment Turtle Rock Enclave 8, Irvine. Steve E. Colegrove, 1913, Scientific Resources Survey on Turtle Rock Planning Area,'Irvine (letter report). Raymond L. Bernor,.1977, Paleontological Resource Survey and . Impact Evaluation for Turtle Rock Enclaves 3 and 5, 'Irvine. a • N Lsa No Area Survey Reports Included Within -the Numbered -Area Theodore Cooley, 1974-, Archaeological Site Survey Records for Bonita Canyon Extension (letter report). Marie G. Cottrell, 1976, Archaeological Survey on Turtle Rock Enclave 4 (letter report). 13 Archaeological Resource Management Corporation, 1978,.Report of Archaeological Resources .Assessment conducted for the Irvine Industrial Complex -West. Beth Padon,-1984, Archaeological Field Review, Vill-age 19A Project, Irvine. PBR and LSA, Inc., 1979, Wastewater Management and Action Pro- gram Draft Env-ironmental' & Action Program'. Theo N. Mabry,.1.979, Archaeological Records Search and Recon- naissance, Upper Newport Bay, Newport Beach. 14 E. Gary Stickel and Jerry B. Howard, 1976, Cultural Resource Survey of the University of California, .Irvine. Thomas F. King, 1973, Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Irvine Town Center Project. Glen Rice, 1976, Systematic Surface Inspection in Town Center Area (letter report). 15 Theo N. Mabry, 1979, Archaeological Reconnaissance of 11-Acre Bonita Canyon Baptist Church.Site. Ultrasystems, 1976, .Archaeological, Historical, and Paleonto- logical Resources Western World Medical Foundation Project, Irvine. Archaeological Research, Inc., 1975,- Preliminary Report - Bonita Canyon. Robert H. Crabtree, 1973, Harborview Hills Development Section 3 and 4, Sites 11, 13, and 14 (letter report). • 0 7 Ua- No. Area Survey Reports Included Within the Numbered -Area Archaeological Research, Inc., 1977, Archaeological Resources of the Coyote Canyon Disposal Station. Marie G. Cottrell, 1978, Preliminary Archaeological Survey Conducted for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Marie G. Cottrell, 1983, Archaeological Resource_ Assessment, Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Edward B. Weil, 1981, Cultural Resource Survey ---of Proposed Pel.ican Hill Road. Jean & L. W-. Lewis TadTock, 1979, San J oaqu-i n Hi 1-1 s Transpor- tation Corridor Cultural Resources Study. David Van Horn, 1983, A Cultural/Scfentffic Resources In'ves-ti- gation of the Planned San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corri- dor (Phase II). Beth Padon, 1982, Cultural Resources Survey for General Plan Amendment, Bommer and Shady Canyons. 16 Theodore G. Cooley, 1974,.Scientific Resources Survey of Field 514 in Irvine Center (letter -report). 17 Theo'N. Mabry, 1978, Archaeological Records Search and Recon- naissance Investigation; Agua Chinon Flood Control Improvement Project. 18 Theodore. Cooley and Adella Schroth, 1979, Archaeological Resources Assessment, Irvine Ranch Water District Pipeline Ri ght-of-Ways. 19 Marie Cottrell, 1977,: Santiago Aqueduct Parallel Reaches 2-6 (letter report). 20 Beth Padon, 1983, Historic Property Survey Report for Irvine Center Drive Widening. 21 Theodore Cooley, 1974, Letter Report on Proposed Haul Road. • NO Lsa No. Area Survey Reports Included Within the-Numbered,Area 22 Cottrell, 'Marie, 1978, Letter Report on Addendum to Previous Report on Reach 4, Santiago Canyon Parallel Aqueduct. 23- Pat Sperry, 1972, Site Survey Report, U.S. Marine Helicopter Base: Tustin, CA. 24 Beth Padon, 1,983, Historic Property Survey Report Proposed Yale Avenue/I-5 Overcro.ssing. 25 LSA, Inc., 1982, Historic Property Survey, for Proposed Improvements to Jeffrey Road and I-5. 26 SRS,'Inc., 1978, Cultural Resources Report, San Diego Creek Watershed in Hicks Canyon, Hicks Canyon, Wash, Rattlesnake Canyon Wash, San Diego Creek, and San Joaquin Marsh. 27 Marie Cottrell, 1976, Walk -Over Survey of Irvine Boulevard Between Sand Canyon and Jeffrey Road. 28 Archaeol-ogical Planning Collaborative, 1979, Historic Property Survey, Moulton Parkway/Irvine Center Drive. 29 SRS, 1982, Cultural Resource Property Survey, Orange County Rapid Transit Concept Design located in the Central Portion of Orange County. 30 Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Inc., 1,973, Walk=Over Survey of Five Miles Along North Side of San Diego Freeway (letter report). On file at the PCAS Research Li-brary. 31 Theodore Cooley, 1974, Field Survey, of the Proposed Right -of - Way for the Extension of Michelson D rive (letter report). 32. Ron Douglas, 1981, Historic Perspective Survey, Harvard Avenue/I-405 Overcrossing. 33 Theo Mabry, 1979, Records Search and Reconnaissance, Harvard Avenue Extension. 34 William A. Dodge, 1978, An Archaeological Assessment of Eight Cultural Localities Along the San Onofre/Santiago 220-KV Transmission Line. a Q Lsa No. Area Survey Reports Included Within the Numbered Area Lowell Bean and S. Vane, 1979, Cultural Resources and the - High -Voltage Transmission Line From San Onofre to Santiago Substation and Black Star Canyon. Westec, Inc., 1980, National. Register Assessment Program of Cultural Resources of the 230=KV Transmission Line Right -of - Way From San Onofre Nuclear Generating Substa,ti-on to Black Star Canyon and Santiago Substation and to Encina and Mission Valley. CSRI, Inc., 1982, Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for the 230-KV Transmission Line Right-of=Way From San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to Black Star Canyon and Santiago Substation and to Encina and Mission Valley Substation, Volumes 1 and 2. 0 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 41 ELEMENT 0 Technical Supplement 4 • PALEONTOLOGICAL R-ESOURCES INVENTORY FOR CITY OF IRVINE MASTER ENV'IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT prepared for Community Planning Services E1 Toro,, California As a technical component of Phase I of the Irvine Master Environmental Assessment prepared by Rod Raschke Certified Paleontologist RMW Paleo. Associates Mission Viejo, California April 19-85 • • a �J INTRODUCTIO'N This paleontological inventory is a techanical component of the Phase I Irvine Master Environmental Assessment. Th,e following report represents the first comprehensive inventory of th-e paleontological resources within the City of Irvine and it's sphere of influence. The purpose of this report is threefold: first to establish baseline data o.n the paleontological resources of the study area, secondly to develop sensitivity zones to assist in the evaluatio-n of the impacts of proposed projects on the resource, and finally to determine the signific-ance of the resource. A Phase II effort suggesting specific mitigation measures will be submitted under a seperat.e cover later. The study area consists of the City of Irvine an-d it's sphere of influence (Figure 1). The study area includes portions of th-e Santa Ana Mountains in the north,_ the Tustin Plain, and the San Joaquin Hills in th.e south. This project is an outgrowth of the concern by the City of Irvine for paleontological resources. It is the City's desire to determine the extent of this resource so that it may be adequately evaluated during future environmental analysis. The legislative background for the protection of paleontological resources in-cludes Federal,-State,,County,.and local measures. Although not specifically described in the earlier Federal and State legislation this resource is commonly considered to be covered by implication as a "pre -historic" resource. Later State and Federal law.s specifically deal with the protection of paleontological resour.ces on both public and private lands. The County of Orange has established what may be the most comprehensive set of guidelines for the -evaluation and protection of paleontological remains. The City of Irvine has established a broad set of guidelines for evaluation of the resource. The respective laws are listed in the bibliography (Appendix A). 0 SUMMARY The Paleontological -Resources Inventory for the Phase I Irvine Master Environmental Assessment was prepared with three main tasks defined as goals; 1) to inventory known paleontological resources in the City of Irvine and its' sphere of influence, 2) to determine the potential for the discovery of additional paleontological resources and define zones of similar potential or sensitivity, axed 3-) to determine the extent and adequacy of previous EIR related,paleontological assessments. The accompanying report pre.sents the detailed finding-s of these efforts. Measures to mitigate the potential impacts of development on the paleontological resources of the Irvine MEA study area will be presented in the Phase II report: During this study known fossil occurrences were, identified and plotted on the accompanying maps. The locality information and .past fossil production,in adjacent areas was used to develop zones of similar paleontological potential or sensitivity. These zon-es are also shown on the accompanying ma.ps.- Exposed within the study are fifteen :stratigrap-hic units ranging in age from less than 10,000 years old to more than '63 million years old. The majority .of these units were deposited in and along the margins of a sea that occupied the region during most of this time. Fossils have been located in each of the rock units at'localities in Orange County. The wide variety organisms represented by these fossils -include; plants, numerous marine invertebrates, whales, sea lions, fishes, sharks, birds, a=nd occassionally terrestrial verte-brates. Four paleontological sensitivity zones were developed -to group rocks with similar pal-eontological potential. Th-e four zones are "No", "Low", "Moderate", and "High". The accuracy of the assignment of an area to a particular zone depe-nds on our knowledge of the paleontological resources of the rock unit(s) present. In general the more common fossils are within a 'rock unit the higher the paleontological sensitivity of the area where that unit is exposed. The only exception is the "-Mode-rate" sensitivity zone, which includes some areas underlain by rocks for which little is known about the paleontological resources of the rock units in the study area, but -have produced significant fossils in other areas. The Moderate and High Sensitivity Zon-es are -concentrated in the San Joaquin Hills and Sa-nta Ana Mountains were older rock unit-s are exposed. The alluvium exposed in the Tustin Plain has a low sensitivity because of its geologic youth. There is a small area of volcanic rock exposed i.n th.e San Joaquin Hills, t.h,at has no sensitivity d,ue to their igneous origin. One task in this effort was to identify the previous studies that were of prepared by currently acceptable standards. These efforts revealed that most of the early EIR related studies did not meet current acceptable standards. There are several reports that, do contain adequate information, these are presented in Appendix B. Included in these reports are survey information that indicates that although large areas o.f the study area have been surveyed there are still large areas that need to b.e surveyed. The Irvine MEA study area contains rock units that span some 60+ million years of geologic history. It.is highly proba-ble.that t=hese rocks contain fossils that will, be- of great s-ignifi.cance to paleontologists or geologists studying the geologic and evolutionary history of the region. There are indications from localities within the study area and immediately south of it that" fossil of intra- or intercontine-ntal significance may be present in these rocks. Fossils from the area -have already, added important new information on the evolution of two g.roups of fossil marine mammals and a-dd-i-tional new information is expected by scientists familiar'with t-he area. • is METHODS The information contained in this-re.port was obtained through a review of a variety of published and unpublished geological and paleontological reports and documents. There was no field work conducted during this study, however information gathered by the author and others during field work in the study area was used to aid in the compilation of baseline data and establishment of the sensitivity zones. Locality records of the following institutions were -utilized. during the course of this study. Natural Hist-ory-'Muse-um of Los Angeles County (LA.CM) University of C-alifornia; Los Angeles (UCLA) University of California, Riverside (UCR) Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley (UCMP) California Institute of Technology (CIT) records now at LACM Natural History Foundation of Orange County (NH'FOC) United States Geological. Survey (U'SGS) California State University Fullerton-(CSF) Fossil locality information was also obtained from EIR reports, published documents, and the personal field notes of paleontologists who have worked in the study, area. These sources are listed in the bibliography (Appen-dix A). Fossil localities are shown on Maps 1 thru 6, and listed in Ap-pendix D. STRATIGRAPHY Exposed within the Irvine MEA stu-dy area are fifteen stratigraphic units. Table 1 lists these rock units a -long with their age and stratigraphic position. The discussion, below briefly describes each rock unit and the paleontological resources known from it. 3 L-1 a 0 TABLE 1 GEOLOGIC TIME PERIODS AND ROCK UNITS Epoch Age (yea-rs) Rock Unit Quaternary Period Recent less than 10,000 alluvium Pleistocene 10',000 to 2 million Tertiary Period Pliocene ' 2 to 5 million_ Early Pliocene to 4 to 9'million Late Miocene Late to MiAdle 9 to 16 million Miocene Early Miocene 16 to 24 mill -ion Early Miocene to 22 to 30 million Oligocene Oligocene 24 to 37 million Eocene 37 to 55 million Paleocene 55 to 63 million Cretaceous Period Upper Cretaceous 63+ million older alluvium terrace deposits Marine terrace de -posits Fernando.F'ormation Niguel Formati:o.n Capistrano Formation Pu.e.nte Formation' (Soquel Member) Puente Formation , (-t.a Vida Member) .Monterey Formatio-n Topa.nga Formation Vaqueros Formation Vaqu_eros-Sespe Formations Sespe- Formation Santiago Formation Silverado Formation Williams Formation • marine invertebrates and vertebrates. In the Irvine MEA area the remains of a land mammal were found intermixed with these marine fossils. Capistrano Formation This formation consists of two members, the Oso Sand Member and the' i nforma 1 "s i ltstone member". These. sa-nds- and s i 1 st.on.es were deposited in a deep sea that covered southern. Orange County. One of the largest assemblages of marine vertebrates in the world has been collected from the Capistrano Formation, as a result -.of - the cooperation between developers and scientists. Puente -Formation S The Puente Formation is represented by t.wo of its four members -the Soquel and La -Vida Members. The Soquel Member is a sand -and conglomerate unit of.marine origin. This member has produced the remains of sharks, fishes, and marine„ma.mmals in the eastern Puente Hills. The La -Vida.Member is represented by siltstones an.d diatomaceous shales, at present little. is knew-n about the paleontological resourc-es of this unit other than a few leaf impressions, fish skeletons, isolated marine mammal -bones and a skeleton of a baleen whale from this -unit in the Anaheim Hills. area. Monterey Formation This marine formation consists of int.erbe,dded sands, silstones, and diatomaceous shales. Although t-his, rock unit is the most wide spread formation in California it is.restricted to the Agua Chinon area of th-e Irvine MEA study area. This unit has been the most consistent producer of fossil marine verte-brates in California. The fossils of fishes, whales, sea lions, birds, other marine vertebrates and numerous inv-ertebrates have been -found in every district where this unit is exposed. 5 • Topanga Formation The Topanga Formation is a nearshore marine deposit composed almost entirely of sandstone. In the Irvine MEA area it forms, some of the steep cliffs in the Bee and Round C-anyon areas. This unit has recently begun to reveal the presence of a very large and diverse assemblage of marine vertebrates and invertebrates. To the south of the study area several hundred vertebrate fossils were removed from the first- tw-o major grading operations into this rock unit. Vaqueros Formation This marine to marginal.marine unit is represented in th-e st.udy.area by tan sandstones and green siltstones. Fossil invertebrates have long been kn-own form this unit. Only recently have large numbers of fossil vertebrates been discovered in the unit. These vertebrates include terrestrial and marine mamma -Is, sharks, birds, reptiles, and fishes. undifferentiated Vaqueros-Sespe Formation This formation was est-ablished to include the rocks that represent the complex interfingering between the marine Vaqueros Formation and the non -marine Sespe Formation. The rock types represe-nted-include the sands and silst-ones of the Vaqueros Formation and the reddish to yellow sands, clays, a.nd conglomerates of the Sespe Formation. Numerous invertebrate fossils are known from this unit in the Santa Ana Mountains. Early work in the Bolero Lookout area revealed the presence of potentially significant fossils in the u.nit. More recent work by students from San Diego State and Saddleback College staff have supported this conclusion. The ve-rtebrate_f,ossils reported from this unit include marine fishes and mammals in association with terrestrial mammals. A • S,espe Formation Of all the rock units in the study area the paleontological resources of the Sespe are the least known. This unit co-nsists of the red to yellow sandstones, claystones, and conglomerates deposited in and along deltas a-nd-flood plains of rivers flowing across the area. There are old reports of vertebrate fossils from this unit in Orange County, however, none can -be confirmed. The best known record of fossils from the Se-spe Formation is in th-e Simi Valley where a very large and diverse -assemblage -of fossil land animals have been collected over the past fifty years. Santiago Formation The Santiago Formation is represented by sands.to.nes and conglomerates deposited on beachs a.nd in shallow coastal lagoons. The fossil resources of this unit are poorly known, at present only poorly preserved inverte-brates are known from the study area. Vertebrate fossils are known from this unit in the Oceanside -Carlsbad area of San Diego County and from Camp Pendleton. Silverado Formation As with the two proceeding formations very little i.s known about the paleontological resources of the sandstones and low . grade coal that make up this marginal marine unit. There are reports of plant fossils from the coals and associated rocks. Recent grading at Robinson Ranch revealed a large plant assemblage at that location. Williams Formation The sandstones, siltstones, and shales of the Williams Formation are -known to contain abundant invertebrate fossils. In addition the only record of a dinosaur from southern California may be from this formation just east of the study area. 7 J 000, x�. Y' MPAL kQ0 ASSOCIATES a 41 LLS CITY OF IRVINE SOUTHERN AREA -SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ACRES 9 R 0 4000 8000 12000 �-�FEET � Figure 1. Location Map -City Of Irvine MEA, Study Area Paleontological Assessment P SENSITIVITY ZONES AND MAPS The zones shown on maps 1 thru 6-are designed to delineate areas of similar paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological sensitivity could better be termed the."paleontological potential", which means the probability for the discovery of significant fossils during development of a property within a given zone. The limits 'of a zone are determined by the distribution of rock units of similar potential. The potential of a given rock unit is based on the past production of fossils an.d th.e significance of the fossils located within that rock unit. This approach is strictly qualitative and based.on field observations during grading inspections, field surveys, a:nd reviews of geological and paleontological, documents. Maps 1 thru 6 also show the.fossi'l localities within the study area for which information about the s,pec.i:mens present was available. The locality information is listed in Appendix D. The accuracy of the predicted potential varies directly with the distance from recorded fossil occurrences...The acc:u.ra-cy of the zones also varies directly with the level of knowled-ge of the paleontological resources of the various rock units within a zone. In areas that have been subject to exte-nsive grading observations and field surveys. the palegntological sensitivity can be more accurately determined than in unstudied or little - studied areas or rock units. Grading observation is one of the best methods f'o.r gath-ering paleontological data .as it provides the paleontologist with large expanses of exposed rock units that are otherwise not available. Howe.-v-er, grading also rapidly destroys the fossils present. Therefore, the paleontological sensitivity zones assigned to little studied areas may over estimate the potential resource. This is done to prevent the destruction of significant fossils. Within the Irvine MEA'st.udy area there have been several surveys but little gradin:g observation. Therefore, information used to establish the sensitivity zones has been derived from the limited local data and by inference from the more thoroughly - : studied Laguna Hills -El Toro district where many of the rock units in the current study area have been subject to grading observations for over ten years.. For those rock units that have not been subject to extensive grading o-bservation,s (discussed in the following section) data from other portions of Orange County and finally the remainder of southern California is utilized. This approach has worked in th-e evaluation o.f praperties i.n San Clemente and was employed in the development of the sensitivity zones for the County of Orange MEA. Each zone reflects the potential for the discovery of significant fossil resources during development of a site. The proposed use of the site does not greatly affect paleontologic resources, it is the mass grading of sedimentary rocks, associated With development that affects the fossils. The four pro.posed sensitivity zones are: No Sensitivity; This is for areas with exposed volcanic rocks. Low Sensitivity; Areas in this zone typically_haVe altered or geologically young rocks exposed at the surface. Moderate Sensitivity; Areas within this zone contain sedimentary rocks with limited histories of producing .sighAficant fossils. The limited histories may reflect the lack of -fossils or lack -of systematic exploration of exposures of these rock units. High Sensitivity; This zon-e contains sedimentary rocks with w.ell established histories of containing.,significant fossils. In areas where rock units of a lower se-nsitivity form a thin cover over rocks of a higher sensitivity the. higher value is indicated on the map. This is done because the variability of 4 geologic conditions may result in grading operations penetrating the lower sensitivity units into.the high sensitivity units and destroying significant fossils. If at the specific design lev-el information indicates that the higher sensitivity rock unit will not be.impacted; mitigation can be scaled down to that,of the, lower zone. The following section lists the various rock units exposed in the study area -by sensitivity zone, included are brief discussions of the unique features of each zone. No Sensitivity Tertiary Volca►iics These rocks by their igneous n.a.ture do not co.nta-in fossils. In the Irvine MEA study area, particularly in the Sa-.n Joaquin Hills, the volcanic rocks are complexly intermixed with the surrounding potentially fossil.iferous rocks. In -areas were exposures of volcanic rocks -are small or the relationship with surrounding rocks is complex the volcanic rocks are included within the sensitivity zone of th.e potentially fossilifero.us rocks. Low Sensitivity Quaternary alluvium Quaternary terrace deposits (locally moderate) Quaternary Marine terrace deposits (locally moderate to high) These rock units have a low potential for the discovery of significant fossils because eith'e=r_the environment .in which they formed was not conducive to t-he accumulation of fossils or as in the case of the Quaternary alluvium are not old enough, to contain fossils. The Quaternary terrace deposits are considered locally to have a Moderate sensitivity becaus-e several significant accumulations of vertebrate fossils 'ha-ve been located in them in Laguna Hills. We can not now predicat where these accumulations will occur, however, the past fossil occurrences near a proje-ct 10 suggests others may exist. Developers should be.a-wa.re that the potential exists for the dis-covery of these accumulation. Quaternary marine terrace deposits exposed adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard between University Drive -and the Bonita Canyon area have an extensive history of prod-ucing significant- fossils a-nd should be considered- to have a high potential for the discovery of significant fossils. East of UCI. and south of San Joaquin Hills Reservoir these rocks do not have a history of,fossil producti,on but should be carefully. -watched.. These areas are sh-own to have a HIGH Sensitivity on the accompaning maps because of their known and potential fossil -producing hist-ory. Moderate Sens-itivity Sesp.e Formation Fernando Formation Niguel Formation (locally high) Santiago Formati-on. Silverado Formation The Moderate sensitivity zone inclu-des rock units that have been studied to varying degrees of completeness. -This is why rock units of such varying age an-d types are includedhere. The Niguel Formation has been extensively studied in the Laguna Hills district and is known to contain localized concentrations of signifi.ca-nt fossils. Unfort,u.nately we cannot predict where these concentrations are with a=ny certainty. The develope-r and planner should be aware that there is a potential for these concentrations and develop flexi,bl,e grading sche-dvles, to -allow for salvage if one is encountered. The Silverado and Santiago Formations are t.ypi.cal of the 'ro.ck units assigned to this sensitivity zone. Both formations have not been extensively st-udied and only -scattered natural occurrences of fossils are known,fr-om them. However, recent, grading activity in the Silverado Formation has reve.aled a large and significant fossil plant assemblage. Earlier grading in 0 northern San Diego County revealed local accumulations of abundant vertebrate fossils in the Santiago Formation. Thia-is a strong indication that as develop.ment ex-pands into areas underlain by these rock units additional paleontological resources will be -discovered. The-Sespe Formation is largely unstudied in Orang-e County. In the Simi Valley northwest of Los Angeles a large an-d dive -rse assemblage of Oligocene and Eocene age vertebrates has been discovered. If a similar assemblage is found in Orange County it .would add greatly to our understanding of the geologic history of the entire southern California regio-n.. The close association of the Sespe Formation with the highly fossiliferous Vaqueros Formation and the undifferentiated V,aqu.eros-Sesp, Formation implies that fossils may be prese-nt in this unit.. More study is necessary in areas where this unit is expos-ed before the paleontological sensitivity can be accurately determined. The Fernando Formation is exposed- only at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and University Drive, but is thought to underlie. the area w-est of UCI. This small e.xposure has produced a several important vertebrate and invertebrate fossils. The limited exposure prevents full evaluation of the entire formation, but the fossils present d,o suggest at least a Moderate potential for additional materials. High Sensitivity Topanga Formation. (locally very .hig:h) Monterey Formation (-locally very high) Capistrano Formation (especially the Oso Sand Member) Williams Formation Puente Formation Vaqueros Formation undifferentiated -Vaqueros-Sespe Form-atiobs This sensitivity zone contains those rock units which have produced significant vertebrate or invertebrate fossils at several localities. Typically there are fossils exposed at the 12 surface in areas underlain by these rocks. It is these areas where pre -construction salvage and special mitigation is most likely to be necessary. Grading operations in these rocks typically produce numerous fossils. The Williams Formation contains numerous fossil localities within a limited area of exposure at the mouth of Bee Canyon. This dense accumulation of fossils in a small area strongly suggests that significant fossils are present and additio-nal fossils will be found during development of the area. The Vaqueros Formation contains the second most recorded localities within the study area. Recent discoveries in -the Vaqueros within the Irvine MEA area, which are the result of EIR related studies, have lead to the recovery of vertebrate fossils, with international significance. Thus it is easily understood why it is considered to have a high sensitivity. The Topanga Formation contains many of the other recorded localities and has produced significant fossils in all- areas of exposure where it has been carefully examined. Its high sensitivity is also obvious. Although exposed only in the Agua Chinon area a-nd-with only one possible locality in the study area the Monterey Formation is considered to have a high sensitivity based on the -well -established history of producing significant fossils in. Laguna Hills -El Toro, Newport Beach, and most other areas of exposure throughout California. The Monterey is perhaps the most prolific producer of fossil marine vertebrates in California. The Capistrano Formation, Oso Sa-nd Member, is a rock unit that is restricted to the east side of the Saddleb-ack Valley of Orange County. This limited area of exposure has not limited its importance to vertebrate paleontologists. In the Mission Viejo area this unit has produced the remains of hundreds of marine vertebrates many of which are new t-o science. At two localities within the Irvine MEA area several significant fossils have been collected. Grading in this rock unit commonly reveal.s fossils. • "The siltstone member" of the Capistranq Formation has -also 13 produced significant marine vertebrate fossils in most exposures. The siltstone member is exposed along MacArthur 'Bouleva.rd in the Bonita Canyon area. This well established history of fossil .production justifies the High Sensitivity rating. In the study area there has been little research into the paleontological resources of the Puente Formation. In Ana.heim, Hills, Puente Hills, and to the sout-heast of the Irvine MEA area indications are that significant deposits of fossils are present within -this formation and more wi-1.1 be l.o�cated as additional development takes place- Thus as with the, other units already discussed past fossil producing history in adjacent areas indicates a HIGH paleont.ol-.ogical. sensitivity. In the Orange County MEA-the undifferentiated-.Vaqueros-Sespe Formations were considered to be of Moderate paleontological sensitivity. However, recent paleontological work in this rock combined with additional discoveries of significant fos-,sils during gra.ding observations in the Vaqueros.Formation su-ggests a higher potential for the discovery of significant fossils. This formation is included in the High Sensiti-vity based on these discoveries, the high number of invertebrate localities wit-hin the present study area, and the inability to separate the moderately sensitive Sespe Formation from the highly sensitive Vaqueros Formation. This is an excellent example of how the environmental analysis process can lead to the discovery and collection of important spec-im-ens and yet not adversely affect development. PREVIOUS STUDIES The paleontological reso.ur"ces of the Irvine MEA study area have been included in several pale-onto,logical studies. EIR related st-udies date_from the 1970's, with scientific.studies- dating from the 1920's. For the purposes of this discussion only those reports prepared for environmental -impact analysis will be • considered. The quality and detail of these early studies and 14 accompanying surveys varies greatly. Most of these early studies lack the detail to adequately determine if the known and potential paleontological resources were adequately evaluated. Typically there is no indication of the rock unit(s) present, if a s-urvey was -conducted or -if done, who did it. Due to this lack of adequate information these reports cannot be considered to adequately evaluate the paleontological resources.,Guidelines for reports are discussed in the Orange County,R-eport on Cultural/Scientific Resources. Those reports that were reviewed and found to contain ade.quate information are listed in Appendix B. Included are three reports; Cooper (1982), Cooper and Sundberg (1976), and RMW (1983) which discuss significant paleontological resources in areas adjacent to the Irvine MEA study area. There are five reports included in Appendix B that are broad scale reports covering all or portions of the Irvine MEA study area. Cooper (1982) and Roeder (198.0) provide a review of the ,paleontological resources of the Senta Ana Mountains (Loma Ridge) area. Gruen (1978) and Archaeological Associates, Ltd. (1983) reviewed the paleontological resources of the Stan Joaquin Hills. PBR in the IRWD MEA provided the only overall review of the resource for the entire study area. - Maps of the study areas from those reports which included field surveys are included in Appendix C. SIGNIFICANCE OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Paleontology is a diverse science that encompasses a wide variety of areas of study ranging from the evolutionary history of a single organism to the history of life on Earth. Also the past traces of life (i.e. fossils.) are used to interpret the past climates and environments of areas. The rocks within the Irvine MEA study area contain information that will be useful in many of these studies. Below are presented a few examples of the type of studies that can and will be aided by fossils from the Irvine . area. 15 13 The rock units exposed in th,e-Irvine MEA study area represent a nearly continuous span of time dating from 60 million years ago. During this time the organisms living on the earth have undergone several major changes or radiations. Base-d on. information obtained from adjacent areas the rock units within the Irvine MEA study area probably contain fossils that would contribute to the scientific communities' understanding of at least two of these radiations. The first is the m-ajor radiation that took place some 50 to 60 million years ago when mammals first began to expand their numbers and diversity. Most of the living orders of mammals appeared during this time period. This time period is represented.by the Silverado an-d Santiago Formations in the study area. The discovery of fo.ssils-in these, units will add to our understanding of the development of later mammalian groups. The second is the major radiation in the marine mammals that took place between 12 and 20 million years ago. It was at this time that many of the modern forms appeared in the seas. This time period is very well represented in the study area by the Vaqueros, Topang.a, Monterey; and La Vida Member of the Puente Formation. In addition to understanding changes in the wo.rldwide character of the world's animal life the fossils from the various rock units will contribute to our unde-rstanding of the variations -within single groups. New species of fossil vertebr-ate.s have been located in the Vaqueros, Topanga, Monterey, and 'Capistra.no Formations within ten miles of the study area. The continued exploration of these -units will certainly add new specimens and aid in the understanding. of the relationships of these new species to known forms. The completeness of the sequence'of rocks increases the potential for the understanding- of evolutionary lin..ages within various groups. . The fossils and rocks within the Irvine'MEA study area Accumulated during a period of rapid change in the landscape .of .southern California. The study of these resources by earth scientists will provide information about development of the 16 K I is southeastern margins of the. Los Angeles basin, the timing, of basin development, the position of ancient shorelines, and the environment of the region. The s.tud'y of continuous_ sequences, like that within Irvine, allow scientist to develop a better understan-ding of the earth's process, which is of use in studing less continuous sequences. In conclusion the rocks -within the Irvine MEA study area contain a great wealth of information on the paleontological and geological history of southern California. This information is a non-renewable resource that once altered or destoryed by development can never be reconstructed. The past cooperation of scientist, developer, and regulator has resulted i.n the collection and preservation of a large volume of data from -adjacent areas. Similar cooperation within the Irvine MEA study area will add to this information. 17 r-, a • APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY Co-unty of Orange, - 1977. Resolution -of :Board of Supervisors (Nos. 77-866 and 77-9911, En-vironm�ental Management Agency. -----, 1977. A report on cultural./scientific resources for the County -of Orange. Cultural/Scientific Resources Policy Task Force. Environmental Impact Profiles, 1976. Results of the field survey of paleontologic resources of the Coyote C'anyo.n Landfill replacement sites. by R. Ras-chke for County of Orange, EMA., Federal Law, 1906. The Antiquity Act of 1906,'(Public Law 59-209, 34 stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431-433) -----, 1935, The Historic Sites Act of 1935, (Public Law 74-292, '49 stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 4461-467)-. -----, 1960. The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960., (Public Law 86- 523, 74 stat. 220; 16 U.S.C. 469-469c). -----, 1966. The Historic Preservation Act of 1966, (Public Law 89-665, 80 stat. 915; 16 U.S.C. 470). -----, 1969. The National Environmental Policy.Act of 1969, Executive Order 11593 (Public Law 209) Fife, D.. L., 1973. Lower Tertiary Silverado and Santiago Formations of the Santa -Ana Mountains region, -Orange -County, California: NAGT, SCGS Field Trip guidebook -to the northern Peninsular ranges -----, 1974, Geology of the south half of the E1 Toro Quadrangle, Orange County., California: Calif. Div-. of Mines and Geology, Special Report 110, 27 p. map 1:12000 Golz, D. J., 1976. Eocene artiodactyla of-southe-rn California. Natural History Museum of Los An-geles County, Science Bulletin 26, 85 p. -----, and Lillegraven, J. A., 1977. Summary of known occurrences of terrestrial vertebrates from Eocene strata of southern - California. Contribs. to Ge-ology Univ. Wyoming 15 (1):43-65. Ingle, J. C., Jr., 1979, Biostratigraphy a.nd paleoecology of Early Miocene through Early Pleisto-cene benthic and planktonic foraminifera, San Joaquin Hills -Newport ,Bay -Dana Point area, Orange County, California: in Stuart, C. J., ed., A guidebook to Miocene lithofacies and depositio-nal environments, coastal southern California -and, northwest Baja California. Pacific Section, Soc. Econ. Mineralogists and Paleontologists, pp. 53=79. , Irvine, City of, 198.3 Environmental Review Matrix, by Community Planning Services. Kanakoff, G. P., and Emerson, W. K., 1959. Late Pleistocene. invertebrates if the Newport Bay area, California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Contributio-ns in Sci. No. 31, 47p. 'Leighton and Associates, 1978. Paleontologic _resources of the Coythe projectoarea. forltheeCountysoflOrange,aassessment GSA/SolidWaste the Management... 1978. Phase II, Pre-construction'paleontol.ogic salvage - operations at Coyote Canyon La'nd.fill site. for County of Orange GSA/Solid Waste'Mana-gement. Loel, W:, and Corey, W. H., 1932, The Vaqueros Formation, lower Miocene of California: Cptl I, paleontology: Calif. Univ. Dept. Geol. Sci. Bull., 22(3):31-410. Merriam, C. W., 1941, Fossil turritellas from -the Pacific Coast .region of*North America: Univ.-Calif. Publ. Bull. Dept. Geol. Sci.,26(1)1-214. Miller, W. E., 1971. Pleist.ocehe vertebrates of the Los Angeles basin and. vicinity (exclusive of Ranch-o La Brea). Natural History Museum.of Los Angeles County, Scien.ce_Bull. 10, 1,24p. Morton, P. K., Miller, R. V., and Fife, D. L., 1973, Preliminary geo-environmental maps of Orange County, California: Calif. Divison of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 151 4 Plates. 1:48000 Phillips Brandt Reddick/Larry Seeman Associate. Irvine Ranch Water District Master Environmental Assessment. Popenoe,, W. P., 1937. Upper Cretaceous mollusca from southern California. Jour. Paleo. 11(5):,45-49. 1942. Upper Cretaceous formations a,n-d faun -as of southern California. Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull. 26 (2):162-187. ----, 1954. Mesozoic formations and fa.u.nas,, southern California. Chapter III, Historical Geology, Calif. Division of Mines and Geology Bull. 170:15-21. Raschke, R., 1979. Final report on paleontologic salvage operations at the Coyote -Canyon -Landfill. prepared, for the County of Orange, GSA/Solid Waste Management ----, 1980. Paleontological assessment of the proposed SCE HVTL for Village 12. for Archaeological Planning Collaborative. 1981. Paleontological evaluation of Irvine Center DA, Village 13. for Larry Seeman.Associates -_---, 1982. Phase II, Orange County Master Environmental Assessment. for Larry Seeman Associates. RMW Paleo. Associates, 1982. Preliminary paleontologic evaluat'ion,, of Irvine Planning Area 17. for Larry Seeman Associates. -----, 1982. Paleontological evaluation of �Bommer Canyon -Shady Canyon. for Larry Seeman Associates.- 1982. Preliminary paleontologic evaluation of Irvine Center DA. for Larry seeman Associat-es -----, 1983. Phase III Orange County Master.Environmental Assessment, Paleontological Resources. for Larry Seeman A-ssociates -----, 1983. Paleontological evaluation of proposed improvements to Laguna Canyon Road (Route 133). for State -of California-, Department of Transportation. -----, 1983. East Tustin EIR, Arc'haeology'and paleontology. for Michael Brandman and Associates -----, 1983. Proposed,SCE H.VTL alignment, Village 12 Irvi.ne,_ California; review. for Larry Seeman Associ-ates -----, 1983. Paleontological assessment of IIC-East, Phase III. for Larry Seeman Associates. -------1983. Paleontological resources a,ssess-ment "of the Irvine Medical Complex. for Larry Seeman Associates. -----, 1984. Final report University Town Center Commercial Core area. for Larry Seeman Associates. -----, 1984.. Paleontological resources assessment of' Route 133,, Laguna Freeway project. for Larry Seeman Associates. ---=-, 1984. Paleontological resources of Planning Area 34 B, .Irvine Ranch, Irvine, California. for Larry Seeman Associates. -----, 1984. Final report paleontological monitoring activities at Irvine Industrial Complex -East, Phase III._ for Larry, Seeman Associates. -----, 1984. Paleo-ntological assessment of the Irvine Center Study area, Irvine, California.. for Larry S-eeman Associates. -----, 19,84. Paleontological assessment of Village 19,A, Irvine, California. for Larry Seeman Associates. ---=-, 1984. Paleontological resource assessment of the proposed widening of Irvine Center Drive. for Larry Seeman Associates. Roeder, M. A., 1980. Paleontologic assessment of the proposed Foothill/Portola Parkway study corridor. for Phillips Brandt Reddick. Schoellhamer, J. E., Kinney, D. M., Yerkes, R. F., and Vedder,,J. G., 1954, Geologic map of the northern Santa Aria Mountains, Orange and Riverside Counties, California: U. S. Geol. Survey Oil and Gas Inventory Map OM-154, 1:24,000 -----; Vedder, J. G., Yerkes, R. F., and Kinney, D. M.., 1981, Geology of the northe.rn'Sant.a Ana Mountains, California. Geology of the easterrT Los Angeles basin, southern California: U. S. Geol. 'Survey -Prof. Paper 420-D, 109 p.. Sundberg, F. A., and Cooper, J. D., 1978. Late Cretaceous depositional environments, northern Santa Ana Mountains; southern California. in Mesozoic Paleogeogra-phy of the Western United States -Pacific. -Section. Soc. Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists; Paleogeog'raphy Symposium II, pp 535-546. Tan, S. S., and Edgington, W. J., 1976. Geology a,nd-enginee-ring geologic aspect of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California. Cal-ifo�rnia Divison of Mines and Geology, .Special Report 127 32p. 1 map 1:12000. Vedde-r, J. G.., 1972. Review of stratigraphic names and megafaunal correlation of Pliocene rock along the southeast margin of 'Los Angeles basin, California. in Proceedings of ;;the Pacific Coast Miocene Biostratigraphic Symposium: Society of - Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Section, Bakersfield, California, pp. 158-172. -----, 1979, The Topanga Formatio-n of the San Joaquin Hills, Orange County California: in Stuart,,',C. J., ed., Miocene lithofacies and depositionar environments, coastal Southern California anal northwester-n Baja California: Pacific - Section, Soc. Econ. Paleontologists and Mi-neralogists,'pp. 19-24. -----, Yerkes, R: F., and Sc-hoellhame'r, J. E., 1957, Geologic map of the San Joaquin Hills -San Juan Capistrano area, Orange County, California: U. S. Gedl. Survey Oil and Ga-s Inventory Map OM-193. 1:24,000 Yerkes, R. F., McCulloh, T. H., Schoellhamer, J. E., and Vedd-er', J. G., 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California -An introduction: U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 42,0-A, 57 p. 0 APPENDIX B ACCEPTABLE SURVEYS AND REP-ORTS 0 Archaeological Associates, Ltd., 1983. A, Cultural/Scientific Resources Investigation of the Planned'San Joaquin Transport-ation Corridor. for EMA County of Orange, Environmental analysis Barnes, L. G., 1980. Phase I,,Orange County Master Environmen-tal 'Assessment, Paleontological Resources. for EDAW, Inc. Coo.per., J. D., 1978. Archaeological, Pa-leontological, and - Historical -Report on the propo-sed Bee,and Round Canyons Landfill Disposal Station, 0-range County, California. by SRS, Inc. for Lockman and Associates/Toups Corp. -----, 1978. Paleontologic assessment of the Hicks Canyon are -a. for SRS, Inc. -----, 1982. County of'Orange Foothill Transportation Corridor study phase II, paleontological assessment;. for Larry Seeman Associates. ----- and Sundberg, F. A., 1976. Paleontological assessment of Peters Canyon Reservoir Regional Park study area. for County of Orange EMA Advance Planning. Environmental Impact Profiles, 1976. Results of the field survey of paleontologic.resource.s of the Coyote Canyon Landfill replacement sites. by R. Raschke for County of Orange, EMA. Gruen Associates, Inc., 1978. Environmental Impact Report 2,67 and Study Report Phase I San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Route Location Study. for EMA-County of Orange Leighton and Associates, 1978. Paleontologic re,s,ou.rces of the Coyote Canyon Landfill area, Phase I, initial assessment of the project area. for the County of Orange, GSA/Solid Waste Management. Phillips Brandt Reddick/Larry Seeman Associate. Irvine Ran-ch Water District Master Environmental Assessment. Raschke, R., 1979. Final report on paleontologic salvage operations at the Coyote Canyon Landfill. prepared for the County of Orange, GSA/Solid Waste Management -----, 1980. Paleontological assessment of the proposed SCE HVTL for Village 12. for Archaeological Planning Collaborative. -----, 1981. Paleontological e-valuation of Irvine Center DA, Village 13. for Larry Seeman Associates -----, 1982. Phase II, Orange County Master Environmental • Assessment. for Larry Seeman Associates. RMW Paleo. Associates, 1982. Preli-minary paleontologic evaluation of Irvine Planning Area 17. for Larry Seeman Associates. 1982. Paleontological eof Bommer Canyon -Shady Canyon. for Larry Seeman Associates ----- 1982. Preliminary paleontologic evaluation of Irvine Center DA. for Larry Seeman Associates ----- 1.983. Phase III Orange County -.Master Environmental Assessment, Paleontological Resources: for Larry Seeman, Associates -----, 1983. Paleontological evaluation of proposed imp.roveme.nts to Laguna Canyon Road (Route 133). for State of California, Department of Transportation. -----, 1983. East Tustin EIR, Archaeology and paleontology. for Michael Brandman and. Associates 1983. Proposed SCE HVTL alignment, Villa-g-e 12 Irvine, California, review. for Larry Seeman Associates 1983. Paleontological assessment of IIC-East, Ph-ase III. for Larry Seeman Associates. 1983. Paleontological resources assessment of. th•e Irvine Medical Complex. for Larry Seeman Associates -----, 1984. Final report University Town Center Commercial Core area. for Larry Seeman Associat-es. _---=, 1984. Paleontological resources assessment of Route 113, Laguna Freeway project. for Larry Seeman Ass-ociates. -----, 1984. Paleontological resources of Planning Area 34 B, Irv-ine Ranch, Irvine, Cal-ifornia.- for Larry seeman Associates. -----, 1984. Paleontological assessment of the Irvine Center _ Study area, Irvine, California. for Larry Seeman Associates. -----, 1984. Paleontological assessment of Village 19 A, Irvine, California. for Larry Seeman Associates. 1984. Paleontological reso�.urce assessment of the proposed widening of .Irvine Center Drive. for Larry S-eeman, Associates. Roeder, M. A., 1980. Paleontologic assessment of the proposed Foothill/Portola Parkway study corridor. for Phillips Brandt 0 Reddick. • a • APPENDIX C MAP .FROM SURVEYED AREAS, El Tori tarme SciY "�'.. I t\ r F' _': 60 . ♦ 1 1 { �.11 ate__.- \ .•e It It I ;0•y � � ♦ /�«. � .' %• �^ s =ice ILL��.��JJJ l J zt- LISM ` '�ir�C� •r +1' 1 ' / `N� I /' — 00 t;� `� �t • . ,• �`� idustnal Farm all ' S Z -t ell CO l.. ,fir' • , • ,♦ ., �; 'y � ` � Y . r� � �<E" � 2R1?'QitSi.:7Y i �iy or *Bb So /TORO !'-^.- aesr:' \� /r.�., t• \��ZIP1r /! Ee cp T CORPS \•\�: ¢;' + �/\;` v'• r'a�. �.tr� �i .�/ �k ,j �i �i;�.. �,�^I•-'jig � �, � �� •/'-� J ` . _/� � co �" / _; �•�� ..'�':� Sao-- �.� : �;•• �r n.l��'.� y •� .. �,'` S-CCI,� 1 _s �� r Figure 1 Location Map Ir•vine'Industrial Complex- East- Phase IU Study Area RMW Paleo. Assoc. 1984 • t• - .. ... - , is rri-n�• _ .. - ' .r a--:e•- � ��-...:..- •..• /Oc•_: •v It `9G ,_. . •1. - _ •73. . �.�.+`+.:� `r�i.. �� S'.. ,+;.��.+�."'li ��s_i' •.•.r.r�...._...}.. 'i..::: wry. � _•�' • • � ,� � .... _ ',_ =i� :: _. '� � v-- _ rr' ' •' ' .:.. i.? � �.,!�,.....: *� ' s •.. _ • •�..::i.�-.�!•..-:.•!v' e:;.K�r.��' �: t • ...� j : � 3.i �,'i%=w,.�,::i.:y � �= • : r JF• ., r w-^:w� .�� '_i'.�.�.aw� •.tS"'^J':" .'.; •l: v�.. �y —._ =7 1\,�'.. • ��.i, G•. ti... R.i L.A ~-.�.-:..1��: •- .-Y- '�, !'G}T•i•`M!7MAi'i- .LT�a..ti� = �....':.." :.Y��_ '_'. :_�1'1� .. a.: s:4C ' aKRYIr -L. a. ... �� •• �� •'�•yi, � � j�•%>jl � - . i J_ •3ii:� iii'.,tik . `Y .l � _' • - ... ��se• 7-. - « ::n�.• "�=�••_� +�4jo..s• M:r��r�.r'.e•'.+1�.'-��+.._. •�1.�.��..C±�:tt ��,..�..+•`. :.. "«:"'.• - �',«••dr,.S..•w:=-�G;..::�t'•:'siG.:.«.�.t::-�el�..;.r:,n: '-'!'�w.a�ti..'_ ?r.. C .:. ::. .. •+•,frY_ �s�,:� �,il•1 :"yy;. �,,,•,• .�z��.:� .r'..i '.: ..`..'.v"M�.:..,.. -- . �.✓ � �, _ ::.i�L.J'w - .• ii�is_a i'vrVe sP�%.a�'� �L'ti:..��r�� .._+ • s3! '""i- _ _'�.r.:.:c� w"'�.�+'.Idr�... :�i 5� ��rafi`++ �ih �Ar.,":. .56 - -• ^•"�.i y'i .3. •+�:• •N ��s`."�w:i.. J'r�isi. -•. i' _ ;� ... � . � .• •. ;. .. - � I. .c .. •._ i�'(ilr�• /i �. � - �;�*•-tip.«.rw+T�. .� •_ _ — :. = • .71: .. - � ... .. •• .mil i! '��:��' '�..:. .- ..._..... - AR 71 _,- - =�'LI • � J ` � ^ •;:::.t..: � •�`1��•\�\ �'- iS2 - _ SSofi,( .Y V.. r1 r7^ ` � 1 cac � . L •- S < N` 4 --� :Archaeological Site (taken from USGS Tustin, California IS" Quad.) :Distroyed Archaeological Site T u rtt 1•e R o k III and V - is.Tr.?sa.Ttlt, Gae : Lithological Units A r c h-a e o l o g i c a� Research Inc 19 7 7- e I a� a 0 0 U :i G 3734w "A »32 Figure 1. Location map -of study area showing paleontologic localities S dv area N 0 0•. O • � • Q .� o ' o o °� o o : o , c • o .•a . " '. . ' • • • ; • S '*vaqueros- -Vaqueros. c jesgg„ e O O p G7 O O,O p p O C •� •o C• 0 o O• O O • • c o o ° o' . ° o , • 'e� Sespe O - °• o Figure 2. Cross-section diagram depicting iaterfingering facies rela- tionship between marine Vaqueros and non -marine Sespe. • Hicks Canyon Cooper 1978 1 t-\ A, is lb �� •_ •� �� ` ; % - !\\ ail ,.tom„.• �� - •..,. '.� ::s•.�1'' .i.T�..Sr:.q.r \\• t' +J "'_J' (1�..� «. (Isf, �i, :1': .\\ �'4 �::. -�:� t't "• ?\ •'Sew ACJ V.- %,N - i ,• a f L s Ara Ip ileW �??'-'.. � ram•, ; � : •1.� ' ,, . r s I� t .�. -a , � r :. \ �. ' ` ,��',.. .� ,�.��::. ,.•' - � i, rob• - r` � ` Ip a��s ♦ ..n fy f \,,{`,� :. is �l'• 6�j• lei t' � ... •' V� a=aa�a 's�a�TlaS "C:•�`,"'it/ �,�t ,( 1• - '•�•.. �`b � `�►1 l�f :f,•� 7 A! i."F^\iF-1�- .� _ - �'-'_'"-sir.+{=�-�.. ,"=•_�r�•;::�•..' t i Planning' Area 17 �� S-urveyed M W PAL�O Area ASSOCIATC-S Fossil occurrer RMW Paleo Associates 1982 �11 .vj m �4 4 >1 ro m 0 r. E-4 ra ra ol ad02 as zas >4 14 U) L� F— ou UO co \ \\� a. �•, , y ..•a).. P- , 'r ' 331 I t 1 r ,S' T T N 1. M 34'S ''••.. ?' • U L;�•,= '10,„. 'v —; .� ems; � of • . ��^y `♦ I I I �\ S r $per �300 _ �'•• - , •Well .. P•ROJE . � .-ram \3 /, ` }•:/ VI CO —� - — -- W /- �% �_1 ems'`' I C M W ASSOCIATES NN industrial Farm ,• �`?_ ,`__.. % Se age r✓�o- , 1 �- �, � s sue: Cam 4-1 , � �� jy. =ems' �--• .r ^,. �`�- �•� / Lei \ /�• •e•''i:' 13 Figure 1. Stu-dy Area Irvine Industrial Co.r.plex Paleontological assessment (El Toro 7.5 min. Ouad-) RMW Paleo.. Assoc. 1983 � i i Ir1N,•YtAts •/ � .• a • ~' � to � / ?` . •I �; East 14-Ine' Mort cars uR .3TI STUDY'. Ift R EA ice. � � �� a� j s� ��,� �• + � a 1• .� �r•er r� ems.` `� . foo .:c; S N �i�♦ J 10. • Y, a ••a/e ,+♦ � ♦♦• , 1 • 0 `r 1�. Y. Fieure.l Irvine Medical- Complex m N Fossil Locality ASSOCIATES i t i v i t z o-n e High Sens Y . RMW Paleo, Assoc. 1983 am 12/0 A. N J A G MPALQO NASSOCIATQS 1984 C1 2 1 19 Figure 1. Planning A.rea 34B' Paleontological Resource Evaluation Fossil.Occurrence 'Project Boundary Her Q k A. E N. VIE X\ % M -195 East I r ine eII IV am 208 rj 0 Ci C, 33.? 69 t'�� ZIA." 5- rai r A % ar s ;4 C Well % 0, AM 239' it I A M, .183 40, % % ' 41 BM 258 Alh nternational Raceway % \ V�1.1 ,l 1�V /� ,/i�� '\1'- 9 _• ./� 'S�jts\ �% ��.., r • 61 IBM 1270 e N CK 7b STUD R E' A 91 A 9. WM1S� j7'.\ F� ; BM '405 187 i \, \\ 9{ 4075 00�� I �i� i .��. tjl lit N N 23 N s X AN Nk I- P MPALQC kASSOCIATES Figure T. Irvine Ce-nte'r Paleohtological Resources' V-aqueros Formation (High Sensitivity) RMW 'Paleo. Assoc.-1984 0 APPENDIX 'D FOSSIL LOCALITIES • • The following are abbreviations. used in thA-s appendix and- on the locality maps: LA -CM = Natural Histo-ry Museum of Los Angeles County UCLA = University of California, Los Angeles UCRIVP = University of California, 'Riverside invertebrate paleontology UCMP = Museum of Paleo"ntology, University of California, Berkeley LACM (CIT) = California Institute of Tech-nolog,y. (CIT) .records, now at LACM 'UCLA (CIT) = California Institute of Technology (CIT) records now at UCLA NHF = Natural History Foundation of Orange County USGS,= United States Geological Survey JBC-HC- = John Cooper Hicks Canyon San Diego Creek study -'see Cooper, 1978 JBC-BR- = John Cooper Bee and Round Canyons study see Cooper 1978b. 'RR = Personal field records of Rod-ney Ra.sc-h--ke LC = published records of Loel,and Corey, 1932 Map Abbreviations plotted location in institution records O = approximate locality, exact location uncertain. • PALEONTOLOGICAL LOCALITIES DESCRIPTIONS vine to # _ Site Description Planning Area 1 001 Locality Number LACM 6666 Quad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros, or Santiago Fos.siIs vertebrates Source of Information LACM locality Records 002 003 004 005 6006 Planning Ar-ea 1 Locali.ty Number U"SGS Formation Santiago Source of Information Planning Area 1 Locality Number USGS Formation Santiago Source of Information Planning, Area 1 Locality Number USGS Formation Santiago Source of Information Planning Area 1 Locality Number USGS Formation Santiago Source of Information 106 Quad. Tustin Fossils invertebrates Schoellhamer et al. (1981) 107 Qu-ad. Orange Fossils invertebrates Schoellhamer et al. (1981) ill Quad. E1 Toro Fossils invertebrates Scho-el lhamer. et al. ( 19,81 ) 112 Quad. E1 Toro Fossils invertebrates Schoellhamer et al. (19B1). Planning Area 1 Locality Number USGS 136 Q"ua,d._ E,1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils invertebrate.s Source of Information Schoellhamer et al. (1981) 007 Planning Area 1 Locality Number USGS 137 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fos-sils invertebrates Source of Information Schoel l'ha"me:r et aI I. ( 1981) Planning Area 2 008 Locality Number USES 114b Quad. E1 Toro Formation Santiago Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Schoellhamer et al. (19,81) Planning Area. 2 009 Locality Number USGS 13.5 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Schoellhamer et al. (1981) Planning Area 2 010 Locality Number JDC-HC-6 Quad. El Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils invertebrates, plants • Source of Information Cooper (1978b) Planning Area 3 . Oil Locality Number JDC-HC-1 Quad. El Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Cooper (1978b) PALEONTOLOGICAL LOCALITIES DESCRIPTIONS (Cont.) vine te # Site Des-cription 012 Plannin-g Area 3 Locality Number JDC-HC-2 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils invertebrates Source, of Information Cooper (1978b) 013' P-lanning Area 3 Locality Number JDC'-HC-3 Quad. E1 Toro Fo-rmation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils-i.nverteb-rates, vertebrates Source of Information Cooper (1978b) 014 Planning Area 3 Locality Number JDC-HC-4 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils i,nvertebrates- Sou.rc.e of Information Cooper (1978b) 015 Planning Area 3 Locality Number JDC-HC-5 Quad. El Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe F6.ssi-Is plant Source of Information Cooper (1978b) 016 Planning Area 4 Locality Number JDC-BR-1 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Williams Fossils inve'rte.brates Source of Information Cooper (1978a) 17 Planning Area 4 Locality Number JDC-BR-6 Q-ua-d. El Toro Formation Topanga Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Coo -per (1978a) 018 Planning Area 4 Locality Number JDC-BR-8 Quad, El Toro Formation Puente, La Vida Fossils verteb.r.ates Source of Information Cooper (1978a) 019 Planning Area 4 Locality Number JDC-BR-9 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Puente, La Vida Fossils vertebrates Source of Information Cooper (1978a) 020 Planning Area 4 Locality Number RR153' Formation Puente Source of Information Planning Area 4 021 Locality Number R-R154 Formation Puente, La • Source of Planning Information Area 4 022 Locality Number RR155 Formation Puente, La Source of Information Quad. El Toro Fossils invertebrates Environment-a.1 Impact.; Profiles (1976), Quad. El Toro Vida Fossils vertebrates E.nviron-mental Impact Profiles (1976) Quad-. El Toro Vida Fossils vertebrates Environmental Impact Profile., PALEONTOLOGICAL LOCALITIES DESCRIPTIONS (Cont.) rvine ite # Site Description_ 023 Planning Area 4 Locality Number RR-156 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Puente, La 'Vida Fossils vertebrates Source of Information Envi-ro=entaj Impact Profiles (1976) 024 Planning Area 4 Locality Number USGS 44 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Williams Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Schoellhamer et al. (1981) 025 Planning Area 4 Locality Number UCLA 414 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Williams Fossils in.vert,ebrates Source of Information UCLA Locaity Records 026 Planning Area 4 Locality Number UCLA 415 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Williams Fossils invertebrates Source of Information UCLA locality records 027 Planning Area 4 Locality Number UC.RIVP 7898 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Williams Fossils invertebrates Source of Information UCR locality records- 2-8 Planning Area ' 5 Locality Number LC 6131 Quad. El Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils invertebrates Source of Informatio-n Loel and- C-orey (1932) 029 Planning Area 5 Locality Number JOG-OR-2 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils -invertebrates Source of Information Cooper (1978a) 030 Planning Area 5 Locality Number JDC-BR-3 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils" nverteb=rate.s = = Source of Information Cooper (1978a) 031 Planning Area 5 1 Locality Number JD-C-B.R-4 Quad., El Toro Formation Vaque.ro.s-Sespe Fossils. invertebrates, vertebrates Source of Information Cooper (1978a) 032 Planning Area 5 Locality Number JDC-BR-7 Quad. El Toro Formation Topanga Fossils i.nvertebrate:s 0033 Source of Information Cooper_(1978a) Planning Area 5 Locality Number UCLA 282 Quad:- E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils invertebrates Source of Information. UCLA .locality records PALEONTOLOGICAL LOCALITIES DESCRIPTIONS (Cant.) vine ite # Site Description- 034 Planning Area 5 Locality Number UCLA 413 Quad'. E1 Toro Formation -Vaqueros.-Sespe Fossils invertebrates Source of Information UCLA locality records 035 Planning Area 5 Locality Number LACM 4171 Quad. El Toro Formation Capistr-ano,Oso SandFo.ss.ils vertebrates Source of Information LACM verte-b-rate pale -ontology locality recordEl 036 Planning Area 5 Locality Number RR160 Quad. E1 Toro Formation- Vaqueros=Sespe Fossils inyertebr-ates Source of Information Environmental Impact P-rofiles (1,976) 037 Planning Area 5 Locality Number RR161 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Environmental Impact Profiles ('1976) 038 Planning Area 5 Locality Number LC 2.337 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils 'inverte,brate-s Source -of 439 Information Loel and Co-rey (1932) Planning Area. 5 Locality Number USGS 138 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Schoellhamer et al. (19.81) 040 Planning Area 5 Locality Number USGS 192 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Topanga Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Sch.oell'h.amer et al. (1981) 041 Planning Area 6 Locality Number USGS 1 Quad. El Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fos.sils verteb-rates Source of Information Schoellh-amer et al. (tHl ) also UCMP v6100 Planning Area 6 042 Locality Number USGS 193 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Topanga Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Sc'hoellhamer et al..-(1981) Planning Area 6 043 Locality Number UCLA 1,534 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fos-sils invertebrates • Source of Information UCLA locality records 044 Planning Area East of 6 Locality Number LACM(CIT) 449 Quad. E-1 Toro Formation Vaqueros-Sespe Fossils vertebrates Source Source of Information LACM locality records PALEONTOLOGICAL LOCALITIES DESCRIPTIONS (Cont.) vine Oite # Site Description 045 Planning Area 16 Locality Number LC A537 Quad. Tustin Formation. Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Loel and Corey (1932) 046 Planning Area 17 Locality N-umberUSGS503 Quad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Vedder et al. (19-57) 047 Planning Area 17 Locality- Number USGS 505 Quad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebra-tes Source of Information Vedder et al: (1957) 048 Planning Area 17 Locality Number USGS 506 Quad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Vedder et al. .(1957) 049 Planning Area 17 Locality Number USGS 507' Au,ad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Vedder et al. (1957) 050 Planning Area 17 Locality Number USGS 508 Quad.. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils. invertebrates Source of Information 'Vedder et al. (1'957) 051 Planning Area 17 Locality Number USGS 509 Quad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Vedder et al. (1957) 052 Planning Area 17 Locality Number USGS 510 Quad., Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Vedder et al. (1957) 053 Planning Area 17 Locality Number USGS 512 Quad. Tustin' Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Vedder et al. (1957)- Planning Area 17 054 Locality Number LC A535 Quad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fo-ssils invertebrates • Source of Information Loel and Corey (1932) Planning Area 18- 055 Locality Number USGS 511 Quad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Vedder et al. (1957) PALEONTOLOGICAL LOCALITIES DESCRIPTIONS (Cont.) vine ite # Site Description. 056 Planning Area 21 Locality Number.NHF 54 Quad. -Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils, invertebrates Source of Information Natural History Foundation, Orange County 057 Planning Area 21 Locality Number NHF 55 Quad. Tustin. Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Natural History Foundation, Orange County 058 Planning Area 21 Locality Number NHF 121 Quad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Natural History,Foundation, Orange County 059 Planning Area 21 Locality Number LC A538 Quad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Loel,and Corey (1932) 060 Planning Area 22 Locality Number UCLA(CIT) '374 Qua-d. L.a,guna B.ea-ch Fo_rmation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information UCLA locality records.' 061 Planning Area 25 Locality Number LACM- 1067 Q,uzd. Tustin Formation Fernando Fossils vertebrates Source of Information LACM locality records 062 Planning Area 25 Locality Number LACM 3407 Quad. Tustin Formation Marine to 'Fossils Fossils Vertebrates an-d invertebrates Source of 'Information LACM locality records 063 Planning Area 25 Locality Number LACM 3877 Quad. T-ustin Formation Marine Terrace Fossils vertebrates Source of Information LACM locality records 064 Planning Area 25 Locality Number LACM 3980 Quad._ Tustin Formation Fernando Fossils. vertebrates Source of Information LACM locality records 065 Planning Area 32 Locality Number LACM 3866 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Capistrano/Monterey Source of Information .LACM Fossils locality vertebrates records 66 Planning Area 34 : Locality Number USGS 504 -Quad. Tustin Formation Vaqueros Fossils invertebrates Source of Information Vedder et.al. (1957). PALEONTOLOGICAL LOCALITIES DESCRIPTIONS (font.) vine Oite # Site Description 067 Planning Area 37 Locality Number LACM 1068 Qu.ad. Tustin Formation Marine terrace Fossils vertebrates Source of Information LACM' locality, records. 068 Planning Area 37 Locality Number LACM 1069 Qu-ad. Tustin Formation ? Fossils verte-brates' Source of Information LACM -locality records 069 Planning Area- 37 Locality Number LACM 3977 Quad. Tustin Formation Fernando Fossils vertebrates- So,urce of Information LACM, locality records 070 Planning.Area 37. - Locality Number LACM 3978 Quad. Tustin Formation Fernando Fossils vertebrates Source of Infor.mation LACM LocALITY records 071 Planning Area 37 Locality Number LACM 3986 Quad. Tustin Formation Fernando Fossils-.verteb-rates Source of Information LACM locality r.e-cords� 072 Planning Area 37 Locality Number.N-HF 96 Quad. Tustin Formatio-n Topanga Fossils vertebrates Source of Information Natural History Foundation, Orange County 073 Planning Area MCAS Locality Number NHF 128 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Topanga Fossils inverte°b-rates Source of Information Natural History Found.ati.on, Orange Cou-nty 074 Planning Area MCAS Locality Number USGS 534 Quad. E1 Toro Formation Topan.ga Fossils invertebrates So-urce of Information Schoellhamer et al. (1581) 075� Planning Area MCAS Locality Number RR 622 Quad. -E1 Toro 'Formation Vaqueros - Fos-sils 've-rt:elb-rates a-nd invertebrate's Source of Information Rod .Raschke personal field notes 0 6 6 • APPENDIX E. REPORT INDEX PA Report Type Date Report # Project -Title 01 Survey 08/30/82 1-2 Foothill Trans. -Corridor Phase II Ol Evaluation 12/05/80 1=1 Foothill Trans. Corridor Phase I 02 Survey 03/02/78 2-1 Hicks'Canyon. 02 Survey 08/30/82 1-2 Foothill.Trans. Corridor Phase II 02 Evaluation 12/05/80 1-1 Foothill Trans. Corridor Phase I. 03 Survey 09/30/82 1-2 Foothill Trans.. Corridor Phase I -I 03 Survey 03/02/78 2,1 Hicks Canyon 03 Survey 01/01/78 4-2 Bee and Round -Canyons 03 Evaluation 12/05/80 1-1 Foothill -Trans. Corridor Phase,I 04 Survey 09/30/82 1-2 Foothill Trans. Corridor Phase II 04 Survey 01/01/78 4-2 Bee and -Round Canyons 04 Survey 05/01/76 4-1 Coyote Canyon Landfill Replacement 04 Evaluation 12/06/80 1-1 Foothill Trans. Corridor Phase I 05 Survey 09/30/82 1-2 -Foothill Trans. Corridor Phase II 05 Survey 01/01/78 4-2 Bee and Round Canyons 05 Survey 05/01/76 4-1 Coyote Canyon Landfill Replacement 05 Evaluation 12/05/80 1-1 Foothill Trans. Corridor -Phase I 06 Survey 09/30/82 1-2 Foothill Trans. Corridor'Phase II 06 Evaluation 12/05/80 1-1 'Foothill Trans:- Corridor Phase I 12 Evaluation 11/24/80 12-1 SCE HVTL-,Realignment 13 Survey 11/04/81 13-1 Village 13 Assessment • l� r� u 13 Survey 05/03/83 13-2 Irvine Medical C6mplex- 13 Evaluation 08/31/84 13-3 Route 133-Overcrossings 17 Survey 08/19/83 17-2 Laguna Canyon Road,.Improvements 17 Survey 07/06/82 17-1 Planning Area 17 18 Survey 08/19/83 17.4 Laguna Canyon Road Improvements 19 Survey 03/23/84 19-1 Village 19A 21 Survey 02/24/77 21-1 Turtle Rock Enclaves III & V 22 Survey 05/25/82.22-1 Bommer/Shady Canyon 24 Grading 05/25/84 24-1 Town Center Commercial Core 25 Evaluation '01/01/83 25-2 San Joaquin Hills Trans. Corridor 33 Survey 11/06/84 33-2 Irvine Center 33 Evaluation 09/16/82 33=-1 Irvine Center Development -Agreement 33 Evaluation 68/31/84 13-3 Route .133 Overcrossings 34 Survey 09/19/83 17-2 Lag-una Canyon Road Improvements 34 Survey 06/11/84 34-2 Planning Area 34 B 34 Survey 06/08/84 34-1 Irvine Center Drive Widening 34 Evaluation 09'/16/82 33-1 Irvine Center Development Agreement 35 Survey 12/09/83 35-1 Irvine Industrial: Center Phase III 35 Evaluation 09/16/82 33-1 Irvine Center Development Agreement 99 Evaluation 06/.25/79 99-2 IRWD MEA 99 Evaluation 01/16/85 99-1 ,Irvine Mea i