Construction Plans

Appendix B Construction Plans

Appendix C Photographic Record Log

Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project Photo Log Photograph: 1

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: South of DS-110 project limits

Direction: South

Comment: Wide u-shaped feature with erosional rills on eastern side of channel. No scouring of vegetation along base of channel to indicate flows. Non-native grasses dominate.

Photograph: 2

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-110

Direction: Southeast

Comment: Feature is more swale-like in appearance, less defined, no evident OHWM or indication of regular flows. Feature narrows the terminal end is located on an upward slope.

Photograph: 3

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-110

Direction: Northwest

Comment: Hill slope topography evident. DS-110 is isolated from DS-64A at the base of the coastal sage scrub vegetated hill.

Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project Photo Log Photograph: 4

Photo Date: June 16, 2009

Location: DS-64A

Direction: Southeast

Comment: Narrow roadside ditch appears to receive flows from the side of the road (right of frame in background). No connection to DS-110.

Photograph: 5

Photo Date: June 16, 2009

Location: DS-64A

Direction: Northwest

Comment: Culvert of DS-64A passing below the IRWD access road. Recent vegetation mowing has occurred alongside the road.

Photograph: 6

Photo Date: June 16, 2009

Location: DS-64A

Direction: Northeast

Comment: Sandbags placed in erosional runoff along steep IRWD access road. Flows connect with the outlet portion of DS-64A.

Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project Photo Log Photograph: 7

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-11

Direction: West

Comment: Culvert is 48” in diameter. Vegetation within channel near culvert is more sparse than the vegetation at the ends of the project area.

Photograph: 8

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-11

Direction: East

Comment: Riparian vegetation dense on banks.

Photograph: 9

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-11

Direction: South

Comment: Bank is asphalt paved at culvert location. CDFG jurisdiction extends well beyond stream banks.

Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project Photo Log

Photograph: 10

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-12

Direction: East

Comment: DS-12 is more open with less of a riparian canopy, especially near the road. The drainage is shallower (low to no banks) and the species are mostly facultative plants.

Photograph: 11

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-12

Direction: North

Comment: Adjacent vegetation at this location (outside of drainage) is mostly upland.

Photograph: 12

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-12

Direction: North

Comment: Soil sample location located near culvert.

Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project Photo Log

Photograph: 13

Photo Date: June 22, 2009

Location: DS-12

Direction: East

Comment: Shows terminal location of drainage with a dense riparian canopy but not a wetland indicative herbaceous layer.

Photograph: 14

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-12

Direction: West

Comment: From end of drainage looking “upstream.” Mostly unvegetated at base of channel through herbaceous layer.

Photograph: 15

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-23

Direction: Southeast

Comment: From end of the access road looking at drainage. Channel is more narrow and recessed 5-6 feet from the surface of the access road. Dense riparian vegetation (mostly mulefat shrubs) within channel.

Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project Photo Log Photograph: 16

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-23

Direction: East

Comment: Top of bank adjacent to site of soil pit.

Photograph: 17

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: DS-23

Direction: East

Comment: End of channel, east of soil pit. Vegetation is still somewhat sparse at the base of the channel.

Photograph: 18

Photo Date: June 5, 2009

Location: Near DS-12 and DS-23

Direction: Northwest

Comment: Abandoned facilities near channels. Currently, there does not appear to be a surface connection to this location as DS-23 curves and ends well before this area. Grading will not impact these buildings.

Appendix D Arid West Data Sheets

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region ProjecVSite: '-"j1tN)" CCw1a"(\ lX\hß~ City/County: 0C0J1lQ. Sampling Date: C:-5-0Cr ApplicanVOwner: de el, State: CA Sampling Point: I Investigator(s): StephM'¡ (? Rr~¡ ~ l;;U:Acøf Section, Township, Range: ~ I ~q i bS ( i2 gw Landform (hilslope, terrace, etc.): \¡tl(('~t 4 rocjcut: Local relief (concave, convex, none): ('(Jf1Cc.v- Slope (%): I. 2;", Subregion (LRR): c. I Lat: '33. bOJ Ö~ S N Long: I \l ,1 k: ') I (¿g I( Datum:6JA:() t3 Soil Map Unit Name: \'?f5 Úi 0~ b rJCtndi-ô Ló típo (1--1 · (b S\'(Yßt2") NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes +- No _ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _, Soil _, or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstanæs" present? YesA- No_ Are Vegetation _, Soil _, or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes /ø No ~r Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No - within a Wetland? Yes No V Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ No ~ -- Remarks: Sa""k PO'I(\'t " ~ /c('¿llttl (P 1)$ 1\ lh tire~ c;S M (Ye+ -t I\I- ptt rti V\ wcl-lfÁ~. Vf~.e1-utOV1 &AlrniMtlbh ,bktá on hay b I ~y- SIf\CL -th.'IS tAN:A hÆS () nA-r~ oUse n'PM\Oh C&lV\Dl~ t't bÆ~d OVl.+t dýl\ c\l +k dfl iN. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size~;¡1 celt i) ~ % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. €M. lA!, ¡\r¡L;) (ç liC V ~fA 30''1 Y N: t;., hat Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. . Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 2j': :. kh o¡. ?to '¡. = Total Cover That Are OSL, FACW, or FAC: J (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 f (C.dí6 ) 1. ml'll-Ç,,+ C~s 5o.dWUo-) 30). ~ FAC.VJ Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OSL species x 1 = 4. FACW species (00 x2 = i-zo 5. FAC species lQ x3 = 3D 3D'!. = Total Cover FACU species x4 = UPL species x 5 = 1. y FACt. ieI'/. Column Totals: 70 (A) 150 (B) 2. ,:)'1 fAClÅ 2.1 Lf 3. l/ -fACLA Prevalenæ Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. . ~ominance Test is ;,50% "rji 6. .ì Prevalence Index is ~3.01 ~ 7. _ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1?:/1. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: llndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation /;¥;e % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? YesÝ- No_ ~m.ark(\ I) ."1 ÑÁ' c 0.1' r eiÑ'vi \~ f2 it¡ g'~ . ~o ~Y' co~~ìdere V~ \ì U Iy l,fl ~y\d) ~O Yr~y- 1J ,t dMi9ruW1 I?~ lAJDA Vlaf' b0~ tl (\ \ì'trd. lr1tlV"" . To ~(O~:Mki;\~ '" 7 °/,) ~(Yayil~ upland s~. ~ arel( vuowd ilA(' -fr " f) "t á (,1'(J2- ~ r b I v us Army orps of E~gineers r.ti (\ì ÐBL ('\4& i:vJ. -- is VD ~\A(~ ~ vzM~ ':ersion 2.0

-r 't\?t\vlC\1' C.~V\Dil'j C\PP.Ct(r it ~ bA:çed Of' Jeq:r _ ,.ÇOvtV-Cl of Q JJ.jAVÐ I ÒJJ ~ +l r(, sys-tl'.Ç Of -T4- Stip\\~~lÌ(vJ?S i.~ G(A f'¿(, . SOIL Sampling Point' / Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) ~ Color (moist) ~~ Loc2 Texture Remarks O-y d.SY;lS/( /of) ~-=- ~ cdYIQce"l ------lType: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,- RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered --- or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lininq, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (A 10) (LRR B) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (M) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) ~ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Dark Surfaæ (F7).p _ Thick Dark Surfaæ (A 12) _ R.edox Depressions (F8) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes NO-4 Remarks: H!Jliý ('~.kd !

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Salt Crust(B 11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

_ Water Marks (B1) (Non riverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

_ Drift Deposits (B3) (Non riverine) _ Presence of Reduæd Iron (C4) _ Crayfsh Burrows (C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ~ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) JShallow Aquitard (D3) . rJ _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) CY FAC-Neutral Test (D5) V'J Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ~ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? - Yes _ No ~ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No -d Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NOL (includes capilary frinqe) - Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: J- -- a. ~ 11' uY~ ~(\~.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region ProjecVSite: LeiZI'.If\ ê~'iA ~im&4 City/County: ócfZ Sampling Date: b Is 10'1 ApplicanVOwner: de P(1) State: CA Sampling Point: d I Investigator(s): '2:ykpi'f\;X fMc/v Ah¿ Wa.j-Section, Township, Range: Wz i bq T~ S i 62 g If Landform (hilslope, terrace, etc.): vi;lit tJ I ròJc.A Local relief (concave, convex, none): CaM v- Slope (%):'-1.% Subregion (LRR): C- Lat: 33. ~D3i~2 N Long:-I\7 lklJl1S \,. DatumNìDß Soil Map Unit Name: l2S - C a plAA h-ö9An2~ 1m \c ( '?-- qOf, çl "'prD) NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ~ No _ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _, Soil _, or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstanæs" present? Yes~ No_ Are Vegetation _, Soil_, or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No -/ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes - No -- within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes - No~ --/ Remarks: - C~î.Y'cf'j -0(StJ 1)5 - 12- \5 ø' vvftlv l\ ~'J-t \C\VlJ - Sb~ (\ p: vf o.V" (A. t' ,e.ait" et or etY1lY10¿r

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 3D i % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: -0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: :2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: o (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3D ¡ ) 1. (;ræ~ lll,'lle- (saiix lA~i"l~\ 2'1. tAr",) Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Q' U Ii At L etcc1ik t;o. \ ì C . 'J 5cJl. mew Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species Ilf x2 = :2K 5. FAC species Z (0 x 3 = L¡ll 1 = Total Cover FACU species sD x4 = 200 UPL species x5 = 1. ).l/ fA( Column Totals: 'lD (A) 2Î fa (B) 2. S°/ y "fl'LIA 3. I lj~ FACw Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.4S 4. 'Lt /5;1, y -PAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. RVfi Sf Cif"SpiLÇ lJ, fAeW Dominance Test is ~50% 6. D;s+'chli'i 7,'CAIi 5/. tACW Prevalence Index is ~3.01 7. _ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 73' = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. 'Í'(lC. okttd ) = Total Cover Hydrophytic % Bare Ground in Herb'-:0"/ Stratum v t¡yn,Sv % Cover ofVegetation Biotic Crust Present? Yes NO~ Remarks: Û (\ bals -JØiÝ1/ß (J~fP1: efto~~ PJi~i I,,, 5(1., fl1J It .(;I¡ rnuj- 1 rI.x i fr/kbvSli J fè/lM./ F¡~ Nrl/Icl) V~t' IASro,Ç-tcGk(f

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point' Profie Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) ~ Color (moist) ~ ~ -- Texture Remarks 0-\ /ó Yiè 3/2. J. -tC?tr -= _ _ ~9i eb=5'~¿11 ~'0CtV'Ö i-b 10(13/3 -l - f\o~~_ _ ~ Ù::ony"tordc=c.dt co; ro-IO /f) )í 1-/1 íOù . - (\Y\ _ =:'7sor iNA( /t"Ik) /i

lTvpe: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore LininQ, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Dark Surfaæ (F7) _ Thick Dark Surfaæ (A 12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes NOL Remarks: Hyr;ri'(' SOl Ú noV- prcSmof

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Salt Crust (B 11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) X Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) f.o(tJdt ljl-hs _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) _ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)

_ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Non riverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

_ Drift Deposits (B3) (Non riverine) _ Presence of Reduæd Iron (C4) _ Crayfsh Burrows (C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No L Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No L Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No L Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NOX (includes capillary fnnoe) - Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: CuI u.v 'II /rdfPv !i ychh51 /1 tr j?'--,/q-,£

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Arid West Region

ProjecVSite: i..r C~J¡'3-Ot" DrAlCCl~ City/County: Ovrt\~ Sampling Date: ~ Is 101 ApplicanVOwner: _ ßN State: CA Sampling Point: '31 Investigator(s): ~. ubob PI~' .A .12\1 ~ kvJJ Section, Township, Range: ~ec+' I b'\ T(á S i' Q î V\ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): .r (A lltA /fb M ~ Local relief (concave, convex, none): CC¥ca re Slope (%): ¿ 2'1.. Subregion (LRR): C Lat:32;. (Pü332ß N Long:- 1Il1,1l "01 \I Datum:Nt\D5?S Soil Map Unit Name: Cc PIStYA Vl s: vtd¿ Loa V/ ( ). =' "'/0 S l~ J NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical or this time of year? Yes ~ No _ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _, Soil_, or Hydrology _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstanæs" present? Yes ~ No_ Are Vegetation _, Soil _, or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes-L No' Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No 4- within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No~ / Rema~ -:i't 10 CíL17-0f), Æ~ ~ t; 0- rii7f clno ö.p we*0vJ ~lltiYì) ìt-- ~N\ ¡u 5J w we&vJ ì S. .~ ìnY ~rk lo.yer 0 (Ll(J Sson ... ÎNHßr~' îf -' ~tr r-H..¿¡- ai. \.ú ç ,Ý\ 7J' VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. r:,. I Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ~ % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 'h (B) 4. .. Percent of Dominant Species g = Total Cover ~CNivi~ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ft) o/~ (AlB) 90 y Th(W Prevalence Index worksheet: i fAcvv Total % Cover of: Multply by: OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species q~' x2 = iqb 5. FAC species x 3 = 91 = Total Cover FACU species qD x4 = '300 Herb Stratum (Plot size: ~ , ) UPL species x 5 = 1. lA~.llóym 1- (c ic) MtJìlo~ CiJ~ 9'0 'I fALÁ Column Totals: ('I Z' 55 kJ (B) 2. vinÌ2r( lIs ~S -;PfØfæsDJ ;; (A) '"(vJ tl /1(0 3. C-t~ÑlJtl~(.t.V" s= ì1cW Prevalenæ Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is ::50% 6. ~revaience Index is ~3.01 7. _ Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Ð = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: SÚ/îC-e no çoì\s Dr h~dVÐ\C5v\ ~ti 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hYdrOtogf~ , 1. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yesfi No RemÅ~s: end of aliYì'1¿f yvf ck-vise O'l~' is\J\ttkel.C\ '.,~'IÝìdvttJ (d\tfflÍf Sfúl(~d.( c bebw (irafia.Y1 ~ot'j)' ..,. d,,,, d íJ~w/lÁplct~ AA~~' or (ll~l f\~&~e6. t\Æ~t -h (I,Ælv-dù IOQA-T\Y\- rJ ~ 11:lCD d us Army Corps of Engineers h.a ý e ~ (oot te s;. SOIL Sampling Point. ó Profie Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) ~ Color (moist) ~~ Loc2 Texture Remarks Cì- (0 I 0 'í(2~/1 -/OÕ OOlft ' --- õtW tfA¡ li~rv CClcn - --- lType: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,- RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered --- or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lininq, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 1 em Muck (A9) (LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ 2 em Muck (A 10) (LRR B) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (F18) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) , _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Dark Surfaæ (F7) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Thick Dark Surfaæ (A12) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): - Type: C¿QhYtCViJA-ëd 50\\ fUVVì-u,..-',lt, Depth (inches): (ì' ( Hydric Soil Present? Yes NO~ Remarks: 'h jl, l Y C00'c.c./cJ Ayd1( Sf/I! not f'¿~'7d-

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more reguiredl _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) _ Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) _ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10)

_ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Non riverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduæd Iron (C4) _ Crayfsh Burrows (C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerjallmagery (C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ~ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes _ No ~ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes _ No ~ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No-- (includes capilary frinoel - Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: ù.+it- hydrlC:7 no-/ fJreS--f jg inch, uJ WI'¡' i oror-k r: i/I( \ Dof+- -6òvV (OodvJtv& '

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0

Appendix E Preliminary JD RGL 08 02 Form

ATTACHMENT

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 7/10/09

B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD: Lisa Cibellis, County of Orange 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, Ca 92702

C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: LA District - File No. Pending

D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Located just east of SR-133/Laguna Canyon Road, north of State Route 73, and south of Interstate 5 in unincorporated County of Orange lands, California (Figure 1). The potentially jurisdictional features (DS-11, 12, 23) are located adjacent to the James Dilley Greenbelt Preserve (see Figure 1). The project site is depicted on the Laguna Beach, California 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles in Section 169 portion of Township 6 South, Range 8 West (Figure 2). The proposed project includes modifications to drainage systems adjacent to Laguna Canyon Road. The drainages are located in two areas. In the north, Area 1 contains DS- 64A and 110. These drainages do not have a connection to other waters and would only receive flows in the event of a release from the IRWD Zone B Reservoir, as occurred in 2004. They are located entirely within uplands and were constructed/engineered features to protect the new road from damage by the reservoir. The southern location, Area 2, contains three potentially jurisdictional drainages DS-12, DS-12, and DS-23. These drainages are culverts that extend beneath Laguna Canyon Road and discharge flows into earthen channels, east of Laguna Canyon Road. The proposed maintenance activities involve minor grading within the channels to restore a gradient that will allow for proper drainage of the area and prevent standing water. In addition, the existing dirt maintenance road used to access DS-23 would be paved with asphalt-concrete paving and modified to include a turn-out that will allow maintenance vehicles to safely exit onto Laguna Canyon Road. The access road terminates at the top of slope above the culvert location for DS-23. The maintenance is anticipated to begin in Fall 2009 and would involve approximately 40 working days. Construction would require mid-size grading equipment and all staging areas would be located within the existing Caltrans right of way.

1 (USE THE ATTACHED TABLE TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES) State: CA County/parish/borough: Orange City: Laguna Beach/ Unincorporated County Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat.33.602085° N, Long. 117.762168° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: Zone 11 N Name of nearest waterbody: Unnamed blueline stream; Barbara's Lake

Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area: Non-wetland waters: 366 linear feet: 8-10 width (ft) and/or 0.08 acres. Cowardin Class: Riverine Stream Flow: Ephemeral Wetlands: 0 acres. Cowardin Class:

Name of any water bodies on the site that have been identified as Section 10 waters: Tidal: N/A Non-Tidal: N/A

E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Field Determination. Date(s): 1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site. Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in this instance and at this time.

2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of

2 jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD will be processed as soon as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331, and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33 C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This preliminary JD finds that there “may be” waters of the United States on the subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information: SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply - checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Aerial Maps, JD waters and impacts, project plans . Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: . Corps navigable waters’ study: . U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: . USGS NHD data.

3 USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Laguna Beach 1:24,000 . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Websoil Survey 2009. National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: . State/Local wetland inventory map(s): . FEMA/FIRM maps: FEMA 2009 (available in Google Earth) . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): . or Other (Name & Date): Site Photos from JD Field Visit - See Photolog (Appendix C) of JD Report . Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: . Other information (please specify): CSU Water Programs - Water Quality Planning Tool .

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.

______Signature and date of Signature and date of Regulatory Project Manager person requesting preliminary JD (REQUIRED) (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is impracticable)

4 Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project Estimated amount of Class of Site Cowardin Latitude Longitude aquatic aquatic number Class resource in resource review area 1 (DS-11) 33.602085 117.762168 Riverine 0.02 acre (162 non-section N W linear feet) 10 – nonwetland 2 (DS-12) 33.603132 117.761795 Riverine 0.04 acre (116 non-section N W linear feet) 10 – nonwetland 3 (DS-23) 33.603328 117.761607 Riverine 0.02 acre (88 non-section N W linear feet) 10 – nonwetland

APPENDIX D CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT

Draft

Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Project Orange County, California

Prepared for:

Orange County Public Works 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 Contact: Lisa Cibellis

Prepared by:

ICF Jones & Stokes 811 W. 7th Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Contact: Catharine M. Wood, RPA 213/627-5376

August 2009

This document should be cited as:

ICF Jones & Stokes. July. Archaeological Survey Report, Laguna Canyon Drainage Project, Orange County, California. Draft. August. (ICF J&S 00455.09.) Los Angeles, CA. Prepared for: Orange County Public Works. Santa Ana, CA. The following report includes analysis for facilities DS-64A and DS-110 (also identified as Area 1). However, the County of Orange has determined that the proposed maintenance at these facilities is not required. No work within DS-64A and DS-110 is proposed by the County of Orange at this time.

Contents

CONTENTS I

CHAPTER 1. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... 1

CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 3 DS-64A and DS-110 ...... 3 DS-11, DS-12, and DS-23 ...... 3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ...... 4 STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 7050.5 ...... 5

CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT ...... 6 Environmental Setting ...... 6 Cultural Setting ...... 6 Prehistoric Background ...... 6 Ethnographic Background ...... 7 Historic Background ...... 8

CHAPTER 4. RECORD SEARCH AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 10 Record Search Results ...... 10 Native American Consultation ...... 10 Paleontological Research ...... 11

CHAPTER 5. FIELD METHODS AND RESULTS ...... 12

CHAPTER 6. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 13

CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES CITED ...... 14

List of Figures Follows Page

Figure 1 ...... 4

Figure 2 ...... 4

Figure 3a ...... 12

Figure 3b ...... 12

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 i ICF J&S 00455.09

Acronyms and Abbreviations amsl above mean sea level BP before present California Register California Register of Historical Resources CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHL California Historical Landmarks County County of Orange CY cubic yards DOE Determination of Eligibility list HRI California State Historic Resources Inventory IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District NAHC Native American Heritage Commission OCPW Orange County Public Works PHI Points of Historical Interest PRC Public Resources Code SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 ii ICF J&S 00455.09

Chapter 2. Management Summary

This archaeological survey report was prepared for Orange County Public Works (OCPW) to fulfill the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The OCPW proposes to conduct maintenance and minor improvements to five drainage facilities (identified as DS-11, 12, 23, 64A, and 110) located adjacent to Laguna Canyon Road.

Prior to field investigations, a literature and records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. The records search included a review of all available cultural resource reports and site records for an area within a 1-mile radius of the two project site locations. The results of this literature and records search indicated that 39 archaeological sites and one cultural property have been recorded within a 1-mile radius of the project areas. Five of the archaeological sites are listed on the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list (DOE). However, no archaeological sites have been recorded within the project areas.

ICF Jones & Stokes contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a review of the sacred lands files. The NAHC responded on June 4, 2009, stating that a search of their sacred lands database did not yield any sacred lands or traditional cultural properties within the immediate project areas. The NAHC provided a list of 13 Native American contacts in Los Angeles and Orange County. Letters describing the project and maps indicating the project locations were sent to these Native American representatives on June 24, 2009.

A Phase I archaeological survey of the two project site locations was conducted on June 22, 2009. No new surficial cultural resources were observed within these areas. Although no new surficial cultural resources were identified within the project locations, the two project areas are located within an area that is sensitive for archaeological resources. This is based on the results of the record search and the fact that the project areas are within close proximity to Laguna Creek. In addition to this water source representing an ideal location for prehistoric and historic use, the flow of water and accumulation of sediments over time may have buried evidence of past occupations in the project areas. Therefore, the potential for uncovering buried archaeological deposits during construction-related ground disturbing activities is considered to be moderate. Archaeological monitoring by a qualified archaeologist is recommended for all initial ground disturbing construction-related activities. If additional cultural materials (prehistoric or historic artifacts) are encountered during construction, work should stop in the vicinity of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the material and recommend further action, if necessary. Design of a treatment plan and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer may be required to appropriately mitigate any unanticipated discoveries. Treatment measures typically include development of avoidance strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs, such as excavation or detailed documentation, or other mitigation measures, following standard archaeological procedures.

If human remains are exposed during construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made the

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 1 ICF J&S 00455.09

necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097.98. Construction must halt in the area of the discovery of human remains, the area must be protected, and consultation and treatment should occur as prescribed by law. During cultural resources monitoring, if the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments being excavated are previously disturbed or unlikely to contain significant cultural materials, the qualified archaeologist can specify that monitoring be reduced or eliminated.

For paleontological resources, grading or shallow excavations in the surficial younger Quaternary Alluvium in the project area are unlikely to produce significant fossil vertebrate remains. Deeper excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits or even the Eocene Sespe Formation may encounter significant vertebrate fossils. Because erosional and depositional activity may have obscured paleontological materials, significant buried paleontological resources may exist within the project area that do not possess surface indicators. It is possible these resources could be unearthed during project excavation activities. This could result in destruction of or substantial damage to a significant paleontological resource. If paleontological materials are located below surface during the construction of the project, work should be halted in that area so that a qualified paleontologist can determine the significance of the find.

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 2 ICF J&S 00455.09

Chapter 3. Introduction and Project Description

The County of Orange (County) proposes to conduct maintenance and minor improvements to five drainage facilities (identified as DS-11, 12, 23, 64A, and 110) located adjacent to Laguna Canyon Road. The activities proposed at each of the five sites are described below:

DS-64A AND DS-110

The drainage facilities identified as DS-64A and DS-110 are located approximately 1.8 miles south of I-405 (See Figures 1 and 2). A section of the Laguna Canyon Road shoulder was subject to erosion due to a 2004 pump malfunction that caused the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Zone B Reservoir to overflow. DS-64A is an 18-inch culvert that passes below the IRWD access road to the reservoir and DS-110 is a large U-shaped channel terminating on the slopes near the access road. The proposed maintenance activities include the addition of rip-rap to the outlet of the 18-inch culvert (DS-64A) to prevent erosion and minor modification of the channel (DS-110) to accommodate any potential discharges from the IRWD facility. Improvements to DS-110 include minor regrading and the addition of filter fabric and rip-rap within the segment of the channel that conveys IRWD reservoir discharges. The slopes of the channel would be hydro-seeded following final grading to provide stabilization and protect against erosion.

DS-11, DS-12, AND DS-23

The drainage facilities identified as DS-11, DS-12, and DS-23 are located approximately 1.5 miles south of DS-64A and DS-110 (See Figures 1 and 2). These facilities consist of culverts that extend beneath Laguna Canyon Road and discharge flows into earthen channels, east of Laguna Canyon Road. The proposed maintenance activities involve minor grading within the channels to restore a gradient that would allow for proper drainage of the area and prevent standing water. In addition, the existing dirt maintenance road used to access DS-23 would be paved with asphalt-concrete paving and modified to include a turn-out that would allow maintenance vehicles to safely merge onto Laguna Canyon Road. The access road terminates at the top of slope above the culvert location for DS-23.

The total earthwork for all proposed maintenance activities is approximately 281 cubic yards (CY) of excavated soil and 90 CY of fill material. Any spoils would be removed from the site and placed in an appropriate disposal area. Caltrans would be responsible for continuing maintenance of the drainages following completion of the improvements. The maintenance is anticipated to begin in fall 2009 and would involve approximately 40 working days. Construction would require mid-size grading equipment and all staging areas would be located within the existing Caltrans right of way.

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 3 ICF J&S 00455.09

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

At the request of OCPW, ICF Jones & Stokes conducted a Phase I archaeological survey of the proposed Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Project sites in compliance with CEQA.

According to CEQA (PRC Section 21084.1), historical resources include any resource listed, or determined eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). Properties listed, or determined eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, such as those identified in the Section 106 process, are automatically listed in the California Register. Therefore, all “historic properties” under federal preservation law are automatically “historical resources” under state preservation law. Historical resources are also presumed to be significant if they are included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a qualified historical resource survey. Section 21084.1 of CEQA states that a project has a significant adverse environmental impact if the project causes a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

As defined under state law in Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 4850, the term “historical resource” means “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or which is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural history of California.” For the purposes of CEQA, “historical resource” is further defined under PRC Section15064.5 as a “resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register.” Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the criteria and procedures for determining significant historical resources and the potential effects of a project on such resources. Generally, a cultural resource shall be considered by the lead state agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets any of the following criteria for listing in the California Register: I. the resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; II. the resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; III. the resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values; or IV. the resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The cited statutes and guidelines specify how cultural resources are to be managed in the context of projects such as the proposed project. Briefly, archival and field surveys must be conducted, and identified cultural resources must be inventoried and evaluated in prescribed ways. Prehistoric and historical resources deemed “historically significant” must be considered in project planning and development.

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 4 ICF J&S 00455.09

LagunaLaguna ReservoirReservoir I Irvine r v i n e C e Bake P n kwy te r D r

Lake Forest

Area 1 Lake Fo Sites DS-64A rest Dr and DS-110 Veeh Ranch Park

VeehVeeh ReservoirReservoir Laguna Hills

San Remo Park Laguna Coast Wilderness Park Santa Vittoria Park LagunaLaguna CoastCoast WLDRNSWLDRNS PKPK PondPond

LeisureLeisure Laguna Woods VillageVillage ParPar 33 GCGC LakeLake BarbarasBarbaras LakeLake

Area 2 Sites DS-11, DS-12 Iglesia Park and DS-23

A Laguna Beach lis San Bernardino o Cree k Rd Laguna Coast Los Angeles Wilderness Park Wingspan Park Ridgecrest Park Aliso Viejo Pinewood Park Riverside Orange Argonaut Park 0 750 1,500 3,000

Feet Aliso and Woods Source: ESRI StreetMap Regional Park North America (2008) San Diego K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\OCPW\00455_09\mapdoc\JD\Fig1_project_location.MXD CM (07-09-09) Figure 1 Project Location Map an ICF International Company Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project Area 1 Sites DS-64A and DS-110

Area 2 Sites DS-11, DS-12 and DS-23

0 750 1,500 3,000

Feet Source: USGS 7.5' Quad, California: El Toro (1977), Laguna Beach (1977), San Juan Capistrano (1977), Tusin (1977) K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\OCPW\00455_09\mapdoc\JD\Fig2_usgs_map.MXDCM (07-09-09) Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map an ICF International Company Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project

STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 7050.5

Human remains are also sometimes associated with archaeological sites. According to CEQA, “archaeological sites known to contain human remains shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.” If human remains are exposed during construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC 5097.98. Construction must halt in the area of the discovery of human remains, the area must be protected, and consultation and treatment should occur as prescribed by law. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. If Native American human remains are discovered during project construction, it will be necessary to comply with state laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials that are under the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). For remains of Native American origin, no further excavation or disturbance shall take place until the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American(s) has made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work regarding means of treating or disposing of the human remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, as provided in PRC Section 5097.98; or the NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant or the descendant fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the Commission. In consultation with the most likely descendant, the project archaeologist and the project proponent will determine a course of action regarding preservation or excavation of Native American human remains, and this recommendation will be implemented expeditiously. If a most likely descendent cannot be located or does not make a recommendation, the project archaeologist and the project proponent will determine a course of action regarding preservation or excavation of Native American human remains, which will be submitted to the NAHC for review prior to implementation.

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 5 ICF J&S 00455.09

Chapter 4. Environmental and Cultural Context

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The two project site areas are located in the cismontane portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California (Schoenherr 1992). The spine of the Peninsular Ranges is formed by the San Jacinto Mountains, Santa Rosa Mountains, and Laguna Mountains, though the San Joaquin Hills and, more distantly, the Santa Ana Mountains, provide the dominant relief in the project vicinity. Bedrock in the surrounding hills is mapped as being from the terrestrial late Eocene Sespe Formation. Within the project areas surficial deposits consist of younger Quaternary Alluvium derived as fluvial deposits from Laguna Creek (Appendix C). The two project site areas are located in Township 6 South, Range 8 West, in an unsectioned portion of Rancho Niguel, depicted on the Laguna Beach 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangle map (Figure 2). Elevations range between 249 and 400 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

CULTURAL SETTING

Prehistoric Background

The prehistoric occupation of southern California is divided chronologically into four temporal phases or horizons (Moratto 1984). Horizon I, or the Early Man Horizon, began at the first appearance of people in the region (approximately 12,000 years ago) and continued until about 7000 before present (BP). Although little is known about these people, it is assumed that they were semi-nomadic and subsisted primarily on game.

Horizon II, also known as the Millingstone Horizon or Encinitas Tradition, began around 7000 BP and continued until about 3500 BP. The Millingstone Horizon is characterized by widespread use of milling stones (manos and metates), core tools, and few projectile points or bone and shell artifacts. This horizon appears to represent a diversification of subsistence activities and a more sedentary settlement pattern. Archaeological evidence suggests that hunting became less important and that reliance on collecting shellfish and vegetal resources increased (Moratto 1984).

Horizon III, the Intermediate Horizon or Campbell Tradition, began around 3500 BP and continued until about 1350–1150 BP. Horizon III is defined by a shift from the use of milling stones to increased use of mortar and pestle, possibly indicating a greater reliance on acorns as a food source. Projectile points become more abundant and, together with faunal remains, indicate increased use of both land and sea mammals (Moratto 1984).

Horizon IV, the Late Horizon, which began around 1350–1150 BP and terminated with the arrival of Europeans, is characterized by dense populations; diversified hunting and gathering

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 6 ICF J&S 00455.09

subsistence strategies, including intensive fishing and sea mammal hunting; extensive trade networks; use of the bow and arrow; and a general cultural elaboration (Moratto 1984).

Ethnographic Background

The project area lies within a shared boundary between the Gabrieleno and the Luiseno Native American people. This shared boundary is Aliso Creek, located approximately 3 miles east of the project area (Bean and Smith 1978). The Gabrieleno are characterized as one of the most complex societies in native southern California, second perhaps only to the Chumash, their coastal neighbors to the northwest. This complexity derives from their overall economic, ritual, and social organization (Bean and Smith 1978:538; Kroeber 1925:621).

The Gabrieleno, a Uto-Aztecan (or Shoshonean) group, may have entered the Los Angeles Basin as recently as 1500 BP. In early protohistoric times, the Gabrieleno occupied a large territory including the entire Los Angeles Basin. This region encompasses the coast from Malibu to Aliso Creek, parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, the San Bernardino Valley, the northern parts of the Santa Ana Mountains, and much of the middle to the lower Santa Ana River. They also occupied the islands of Santa Catalina, San Clemente, and San Nicolas. Within this large territory were more than 50 residential communities with populations ranging from 50 to 150 individuals. The Gabrieleno had access to a broad and diverse resource base. This wealth of resources, coupled with an effective subsistence technology, well-developed trade network, and ritual system, resulted in a society that was among one of the most materially wealthy and culturally sophisticated cultural groups in California at the time of contact.

The term Luiseño originally referred to the Takic-speaking people associated with Mission San Luis Rey, while some related groups of Takic-speakers were called Juaneño, after an association with Mission San Juan Capistrano (Bean and Shipek 1978). Later studies indicated that the two groups were sufficiently related culturally and linguistically to warrant a single term for both groups: Luiseño (White 1963). The Luiseño language is part of the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily, which is part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language family (Shipley 1978).

The territory of the Luiseño comprised 1,500 square miles of Southern California coast (White 1963). The southern border of Luiseño territory overlapped with the northern extent of Ipai territory, south of the San Luis Rey River. The northern boundary was recognized from the mouth of Aliso Creek on the coast to Santiago Peak on the east. The southeastern extent of Luiseño territory was marked at Palomar Mountain (Bean and Shipek 1978). The Luiseño lived in sedentary villages along streams, at valley bottoms, and coastal strands near mountain ranges (Bean and Shipek 1978).

The Gabrielino, Juaneño, and Luiseño (of whom the Juaneño are a subgroup) have a history of interaction and border one another’s territories at Aliso Creek (Bean and Shipek 1978; Bean and Smith 1978). The Gabrielino and Juaneño are linguistically related as well, forming separate languages under the Cupan group of the Takic language family (Shipley 1978). In addition, the intrusion of Spanish missionaries and subsequent forced relocations of southern

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 7 ICF J&S 00455.09

California Indians resulted in polyethnic native communities (Bean and Smith 1978). One such community, Genga, was located in the Upper Newport Bay vicinity, according to San Juan Capistrano Mission records (Strudwick et al. 1996). The community of Genga was occupied by Gabrielinos, Juaneños, and Luiseños (Altschul, Gregory, and Doolittle 1998).

Historic Background

The Spanish colonization effort of present-day California in the mid-18th century focused on three institutions: the presidio, the pueblo, and the mission. The presidio was a military base. The Spanish government sent military expeditions to California to explore the region for harbors that could provide secure sites for the presidios. The first recorded contact between the Spanish and the Gabrielino in the Orange County area was during Gaspar de Portola’s expedition to Monterey in 1769. The presidios were important for the colonization of an area and the protection of settlers. Pueblos were civil settlements that supplied agricultural products and provided an example of proper Spanish society to the natives.

The missions were the central economic units of the colonial system. The goal of the mission system was to convert the native peoples to Catholicism, gain control of the native population, and establish self-sufficient communities. The military presence of the presidios supported the missions with a force of arms that helped control the native people. Despite a high death rate among the native population, the combination of the mission priests and the military worked to make the missions productive institutions for many years. In 1776, Franciscan missionaries established Mission San Juan Capistrano, though construction of the mission did not begin until 1797 and was not completed until 1806.

In 1821, Mexico won independence from Spain and subsequently became a republic of states. In 1833, the Mexican government secularized the missions and began to redistribute the mission land holdings. The land was redistributed in the form of land grants to individuals who promised to work the land, primarily by raising cattle. Although secularization was intended to distribute the mission lands to the settlers and native population, the large-scale cattle ranchers or rancheros claimed the bulk of the resources, and few Native Americans received land grants. These cattle ranches became the driving force in the economy and the dominant culture of California, including in present Orange County. The ranchero economy was fueled on native labor, and produced tallow and hides for trade to the eastern United States and England.

During the 19th century, life in the Orange County area was mainly agrarian. When Anglo-Americans began to arrive in the 1840s and 1850s, they generally continued the ranching operations established by the Californios. During the 1860s and 1870s, ranchers shifted operations, first to sheep ranching, then to a diversified mix of citrus fruits, grains, and grapes (Lapin et al. 1999). By the mid 1880s, the area of Orange County became established as a major fruit production area, including oranges, lemons, limes, bananas, prunes, apricots, pears, and plums. Some 15 miles of irrigation ditches supplied 14,000 acres of land, two-thirds of which was devoted to orchards (Marsh 1994). Although cattle and grains could not be raised profitably on 40- or 80-acre parcels, fruits could be. Many small producers established orchards, assisted by the formation of water companies that brought irrigated water to the orchards and fields. Railroad connections during the 1870s and 1880s further encouraged agricultural development.

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 8 ICF J&S 00455.09

The rural population grew during this time, including families of landowners, tenants, and laborers.

The project area is located within Rancho Niguel, which was 13,316 acres. The rancho was patented in 1873, but in the interim Juan Avila, the 1842 grantee, had sold parts of it to various individuals. The largest parcel came into the hands of Cyrus B. Rawson, from whom Lewis F. Moulton bought it in 1895, giving an indenture for $33,000 for a 5-year note held by Harris Newmark and Kasper B. Kohn of Los Angeles. In succeeding years, Mr. Moulton, running sheep and cattle and raising barley and other crops, was able to discharge the debt. He consolidated much of the original grant by purchase from interim owners and eventually doubled the original holding to 26,000 acres. On October 1, 1901, Moulton paid $18,450 cash to Adoniram J. Bacon for valley acreage. Jean Pierre Daguerre became owner of an undivided third of the ranch by investing $30,000 and a flock of sheep. After the death of Lewis Moulton in 1938, the ranch was divided among four owners; three parcels went to Mrs. Moulton and her two daughters and the fourth to the Daguerre family (SRS 1977).

Development came late to the inner Moulton Ranch. In 1961, Ross Cortese purchased 2,500 acres which has become Laguna Hills Leisure World; half the land is in residential units and the rest in commercial use. Just south of Leisure World, the ranch home of the Moultons stood for years on a knoll until demolished in 1976 (SRS 1977).

Rancho Niguel, as originally granted, reached the coast only at a narrow point that is now Monarch Bay, where Salt Creek flows into the ocean. The ungranted land, running north and west, included the present South Laguna, Laguna Beach, and a section of Laguna Canyon south of the intersection of El Toro Road and Laguna Canyon Road. Early surveys referred to this land as El Sobrante, Spanish for extra or excess (SRS 1977).

It appears these lands were never granted because they were occupied, though never owned, by two Mexican families, the Acunas and the Olivares. The boundary lies within a mile of the coast up Aliso Canyon. Thus, land in lower Aliso Canyon and north became available to homesteaders (SRS 1977).

A homestead of 152 acres was occupied in 1871 by the George Thurston family who farmed it for many years, selling produce to Laguna Beach residents and summer visitors. Drinking water from wells on the Thurston property was hauled to Laguna Beach. The ranch included the lower canyon between Niguel Rancho and the beach; it is now occupied by the Aliso Creek Golf Club and Aliso Beach County Park. Early Laguna developed along the bluffs from Aliso to Laguna Canyon, into the east side of Laguna Canyon, then as far north as El Toro Road (formerly, Niguel Road). Most of the coastal mesas and ravines were homesteaded by the four Goff brothers—Frank, Henry, Lee, and Hubbard—in the early l870s. Frank Goff farmed the mesa, now occupied by Treasure Island Trailer Park, and his name is associated with Goff Island, a half-acre islet thought to be a part of his land but declared by Congress in 1931 to be public domain. The mesa is also the site of a large Indian village, excavated by the WPA in 1939–40 (SRS 1977).

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 9 ICF J&S 00455.09

Chapter 5. Record Search and Previous Research

RECORD SEARCH RESULTS

On June 2, 2009, an expedited records search was conducted by a staff researcher at the SCCIC, located at California State University, Fullerton. The records search included a review of all recorded archaeological sites within a 1-mile radius of the project areas as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest (PHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) listings were reviewed (see Appendix A).

The results of this literature and records search indicated that 39 archaeological sites and one cultural property have been recorded within a 1-mile radius of the project areas. Five of the archaeological sites are listed on the DOE. However, no archaeological sites have been recorded within the project areas.

The PHI lists no properties within a 1-mile radius of the project areas.

The CHL lists no properties within a 1-mile radius of the project areas.

The California Register of Historic Places lists two properties within a 1-mile radius of the project areas. These are properties determined to have a National Register of Historic Places Status of 1 or 2, a California Historical Landmark numbering 770 and higher, or a Point of Historical Interest listed after January 1, 1998.

The National Register of Historic Places lists no properties within a 1-mile radius of the project areas.

The HRI lists two properties that have been evaluated for historical significance within a 1-mile radius of the project areas.

Seventy cultural resource studies have been conducted within a 1-mile radius of the project areas. Of these, 11 studies have been conducted within the project areas.

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION

ICF Jones & Stokes contacted the NAHC and requested a review of the sacred lands files. The NAHC responded on June 4, 2009, stating that a search of their sacred lands database did not yield any sacred lands or traditional cultural properties within the immediate project areas. The NAHC provided a list of 13 Native American contacts in Los Angeles and Orange County (see Appendix B). Letters describing the project and maps indicating the project

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 10 ICF J&S 00455.09

locations were sent to these Native American representatives on June 24, 2009. As of July 3, 2009, no responses have been received.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESEARCH

On May 31, 2009, a paleontological record search was conducted by Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D. of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section.

According to Dr. McLeod’s literature review, there are no vertebrate fossil localities that lie directly within the proposed project areas, but there are vertebrate fossil localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur within the proposed project areas (see Appendix C).

Bedrock in the adjacent hills is mapped as being from the terrestrial late Eocene Sespe Formation. There are no vertebrate fossil localities nearby from this rock unit, and the closest vertebrate fossil localities from the Sespe Formation, LACM 3982-3985 and 6624, situated almost directly north of the proposed project areas around the Santiago Reservoir, are probably from the correlative and interfingering marine late Eocene to Oligocene Vaqueros Formation because they produced marine vertebrate fossils of ray (Myliobatis), sharks (Isurus planus and Isurus hastalis), desmostylians (Desmostylus), and undetermined whale (Cetacea). Surficial deposits in the proposed project areas consist of younger Quaternary Alluvium derived as fluvial deposits from Laguna Creek, which flows through the area. These younger Quaternary deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers, but there is always the potential for fossils to exist within these layers. The closest fossil vertebrate localities from these deposits are LACM 4628-4629, east-southeast of the proposed project areas approximately between La Paz Road and Oso Parkway, that produced fossil specimens of mammoth (Mammuthus), horse (Equus), tapir (Tapirus californicus), and bison (Bison) (Appendix C).

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 11 ICF J&S 00455.09

Chapter 6. Field Methods and Results

An archaeological reconnaissance survey of the two project locations was conducted by Catharine M. Wood, RPA, ICF Jones & Stokes archaeologist, on June 22, 2009. Ms. Wood has an M.A. degree in Anthropology from California State University, Fullerton, and 8 years of experience in California archaeology. The two project areas are located on the east side of Laguna Canyon Road (SR 133) and are approximately 1.6 miles apart from each other.

Project area one, the location of DS-110 and 64A (Figure 3a), is located at the boundary of the Cities of Irvine and Laguna Beach. According to the archaeological records search, there are six archaeological sites located within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area. The area is hilly, on higher ground at an elevation of 400 ft amsl and covered in dry grasses and thistle with poor to non-existent ground surface visibility. The area appears to have been disturbed by road maintenance activities. No cultural resources were observed within the project area.

Project area two, the location of DS-11, 12, and 23 (Figure 3b), is located just north of the SR 133 and SR 73 separation and within the James Dilley Preserve. According to the archaeological records search, there are seven archaeological sites located within less than a 0.25-mile radius of the project area. Laguna Creek flows through both project areas, but in Area 2 is flat, low-lying, and marsh-like, at an elevation of 249 ft amsl. The area appears to have been disturbed by road maintenance activities, flood control activities associated with the poured concrete drain located just beneath the road, and maintenance activities associated with the James Dilley Preserve. No cultural resources were observed within the project area.

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 12 ICF J&S 00455.09

Area shown in Figure

Laguna Coast Laguna Coast Wilderness Wilderness Laguna Park Park Laguna CoastCoast WLDRNSWLDRNS PKPK PondPond

BarbarasBarbaras LakeLake

DS-64A

DS-110

Laguna Canyon Rd

Legend

JD Points

Culvert Hydroseeding DS-64A Existing Drainage DS-110 Existing Channel 0 10 20 40

Proposed Channel Alignment Feet

IRWD Flow Easement Source: OCPW (2009) K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\OCPW\00455_09\mapdoc\JD\Fig3a_siteplan_north.MXDAC (06-19-09) Figure 3a Site Plan an ICF International Company Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project DS-23

Laguna Coast Wilderness Park LagunaLaguna CoastCoast WLDRNSWLDRNS PKPK PondPond Laguna Coast Wilderness Park BarbarasBarbaras LakeLake

Area shown in Figure

Storage Shed Tank

Inactive Utility Pole DS-12

Laguna Canyon Rd

DS-11

Legend

Culvert Temporary Construction Access Limits of Channel Grading Drainage Centerline Proposed Dirt Road 0 10 20 40 Dirt Road Grading Feet Abandoned Facilities (Locations are Approximate) Source: OCPW (2009) K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\OCPW\00455_09\mapdoc\JD\Fig3b_siteplan_south.MXDAC (06-23-09) Figure 3b Site Plan an ICF International Company Laguna Canyon Road Drainage Improvements Project

Chapter 7. Recommendations

Therefore, the potential for uncovering buried archaeological deposits during construction-related ground disturbing activities is considered to be moderate. Archaeological monitoring by a qualified archaeologist is recommended for all initial ground disturbing construction-related activities. If additional cultural materials (prehistoric or historic artifacts) are encountered during construction, work should stop in the vicinity of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the material and recommend further action, if necessary. Design of a treatment plan and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer may be required to appropriately mitigate any unanticipated discoveries. Treatment measures typically include development of avoidance strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs, such as excavation, detailed documentation, or other mitigation measures, following standard archaeological procedures. If human remains are exposed during construction, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC 5097.98. Construction must halt in the area of the discovery of human remains, the area must be protected, and consultation and treatment should occur as prescribed by law. During cultural resources monitoring, if the qualified archaeologist determines that the sediments being excavated are previously disturbed or unlikely to contain significant cultural materials, the qualified archaeologist can specify that monitoring be reduced or eliminated.

Grading or shallow excavations in the surficial younger Quaternary Alluvium in the project area are unlikely to produce significant fossil vertebrate remains. Deeper excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits or even the Eocene Sespe Formation may encounter significant vertebrate fossils. Because erosional and depositional activity may have obscured paleontological materials, significant buried paleontological resources may exist within the project area that do not possess surface indicators. It is possible these resources could be unearthed during project excavation activities. This could result in destruction of or substantial damage to a significant paleontological resource. If paleontological materials are located below surface during the construction of the project, work should be halted in that area so that a qualified paleontologist can determine the significance of the find.

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 13 ICF J&S 00455.09

Chapter 8. References Cited

Altschul, J. H., T. L. Gregory and C. J. Doolittle 1998 Cultural Setting and Previous Research. In House Pits and Middens: A Methodological Study of Site Structure and Formation Processes at CA-ORA-16, Newport Bay, Orange County, California, edited by D. R. Grenda, C. J. Doolittle and J. H. Altschul, pp. 13-27. Technical Series No. 69. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Archaeological Associates 1980 Archaeological Test Excavation Report: The Sakioka Site, near South Coast Plaza, Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. Prepared by Archaeological Associates, Ltd., Costa Mesa, California. Prepared for Ultrasystems, Inc., Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Bean, L. J., and F. C. Shipek 1978 Luiseno. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Bean, L. J., and C. R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Jones and Stokes 2004 Draft Treatment Plan to Conduct Phased Archaeological Testing and Evaluation, Data Recovery, and Construction Monitoring for the CenterLine Project, Orange County, California. Prepared for Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange, California, and Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbooks of the Indians of California. California Book Company, Berkeley, CA.

Lapin, P., C. Duke, D. Gray, M. Lopez, V. Snelson, A. Cole, J. Bauman, A. Urhas, and S. W. Conkling 1999 Cultural Resource Assessment for the CenterLine Rail Transit Project, Orange County, California. Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., Irvine California. Prepared for Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange, California, and Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco.

Liebeck, J. 1990 Irvine: A History of Innovation and Growth. Pioneer Publishing, Inc., Houston, Texas.

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 14 ICF J&S 00455.09

Marsh, D. 1994 Santa Ana…An Illustrated History. Heritage Publishing Company, Encinitas, California.

Moratto, M. J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

OC Almanac. 2007. Headline History Orange County1889 to 1909. Available: . Accessed: June 6, 2006.

Schoenherr, A. A. 1992 A Natural History of California. California Natural History Guides, No. 56., University of California Press, Berkeley.

Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1978 Cultural Resources Report On The Proposed San Diego Creek Watershed Erosion and Sedimentary Control System in Hicks Canyon, Hicks Canyon Wash, Rattlesnake Creek Wash, San Diego Creek, and the San Joaquin Marsh Located in Orange County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Shipley, W.F. 1978 Native Languages of California. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 80-90. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Strudwick, I. 1996 Site Record Update for 30-000196. Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., Irvine, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

White, Raymond C. 1963 Luiseno Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2): 91-194. Berkeley.

Orange County Public Works Archaeological Survey Report Laguna Canyon Drainage Improvement Project August 2009 15 ICF J&S 00455.09

Appendix A. South Central Coastal Information Center Response

Appendix B. Native American Heritage Commission Response

Appendix C. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Response