Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

March 14, 2018 | GHD-04

Prepared for:

Moulton Niguel Water District 26161 Gordon Road Laguna Hills, CA 92653

Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 16485 Laguna Canyon Road Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618

Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared for: Moulton Niguel Water District 26161 Gordon Road Laguna Hills, CA 92653

Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 16485 Laguna Canyon Road Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618

March 14, 2018 | GHD-04

Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 INITIAL STUDY INFORMATION SHEET ...... 1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...... 5 1.3 DETERMINATION ...... 6 1.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 7 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ...... 9 I. AESTHETICS...... 9 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ...... 10 III. AIR QUALITY ...... 11 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 13 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 21 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 24 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...... 26 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...... 28 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...... 30 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ...... 33 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ...... 34 XII. NOISE ...... 35 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...... 38 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ...... 39 XV. RECREATION ...... 40 XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ...... 41 XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 43 XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...... 44 XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 46 3.0 REFERENCES ...... 48

i Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Biological Technical Report B Cultural Resources Survey C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Follows Page

1 Regional Location ...... 2 2 Aerial Vicinity ...... 2 3 Proposed Project ...... 2

ii Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Name or Description of Project: Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

Project Location: The project area is generally located at Interstate 5 (I-5), approximately 0.30 mile to the south of Oso Parkway and one mile north of Crown Valley Parkway in the City of Mission Viejo, Orange County, California. The project area straddles I-5, with Mission Viejo Country Club in the eastern portions and Moulton Niguel Water District’s (MNWD’s) Wastewater Plant 3A in the western portions.

Lead Agency Name: Moulton Niguel Water District

MNWD’s Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project (project) is proposing replacement of existing potable water (PW) and recycled water (RW) pipelines that run underneath the I-5 freeway using trenchless microtunneling installation methods. The PW and RW pipelines transport water to and from existing pump stations located on each side of the freeway.

FINDINGS

MNWD, the Lead Agency, having reviewed the Initial Study of this proposed project, does hereby find and declare that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures. A brief statement of the reasons supporting the Lead Agency’s findings are as follows:

MNWD finds that the project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:

1. The proposed project may potentially result in significant impacts from construction activities to least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher; however, implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 would reduce associated impacts to below a level of significance.

2. The proposed project may potentially result in significant impacts from construction activities to pallid bat and western red bat; however, implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 would reduce associated impacts to below a level of significance.

3. The proposed project may potentially result in significant indirect noise impacts from construction activities to nesting birds; however, implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 would reduce associated impacts to below a level of significance

4. The proposed project may potentially result in significant impacts from construction activities to southern western pond turtle and two-striped garter snake; however, implementation of mitigation measure BIO-4 would reduce associated impacts to below a level of significance.

5. The proposed project may potentially result in significant impacts to unknown buried cultural and tribal cultural resources; however, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 would reduce associated impacts to below a level of significance.

iii Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

In addition, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, or utilities and service systems.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Implementation of the project-specific mitigation measures identified below would reduce potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance.

BIO-1 Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Due to presence of suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher adjacent to the proposed work areas, the following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented to avoid potential indirect impacts to these two species:

1. Construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside of the breeding season for least Bell’s vireo (March 15 through August 31) and southwestern willow flycatcher (May 1 through August 31) to the extent feasible.

2. If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, grubbing, etc.) are proposed within the breeding season of least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher, focused protocol surveys for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher shall be conducted prior to commencement of construction activities, within all suitable habitat located on the study area, along with a 500-foot buffer where suitable habitat occurs, to determine whether the habitat is occupied. Focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and during the breeding season in accordance with the most recent USFWS guidelines. Focused surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with a southwestern willow flycatcher recovery permit and during the breeding season in accordance with the most recent USFWS guidelines. The results of the focused surveys shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to USFWS and/or CDFW.

If the qualified biologist determines that least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher do not occur within 500 feet of the proposed construction, the activities shall be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that the habitat is occupied by least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher, the following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented:

iv Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

additional minimization measures are taken. Such measures may include retaining a qualified acoustician to determine ambient noise levels and project-related noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat. Noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat shall not exceed an hourly average of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA), or a 3 dBA increase in noise levels if ambient noise levels exceed 60 dBA. If project-related noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat are above 60 dBA or the 3 dBA increase in noise occurs, additional minimization measures shall be taken to reduce project- related noise levels to an acceptable level as determined by the biological monitor. Measures may include, but are not limited to, limitation on the use of certain equipment, placement of equipment, restrictions on the simultaneous use of equipment, use of noise barriers, or other noise attenuation methods as deemed appropriate by the biologist and acoustician. The USFWS and/or CDFW shall be notified of additional minimization measures taken to reduce noise during construction activities. If the biological monitor determines that the construction activities are still affecting the birds’ behavior after implementing the additional minimization measures, the noise generating construction activities will be discontinued until USFWS and/or CDFW are contacted to discuss alternative methods. The biological monitor shall prepare written documentation of all monitoring activities at the completion of construction activities, which shall be submitted to CDFW/or USFWS.

c. All project personnel shall attend a training program presented by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. The training program will inform project personnel about the life history of least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher and all avoidance and minimization measures.

d. The construction contractor shall only allow construction activities to occur during daylight hours and high noise levels shall generally be limited according to these hours.

e. The construction contractor shall require functional mufflers on all construction equipment (stationery or mobile) used within or immediately adjacent to any 500-foot avoidance buffers to reduce construction equipment noise. Equipment shall be situated so that noise generated from the equipment is not directed towards habitat occupied by least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher.

f. The construction contractor will place staging areas as far as feasible from any nest occupied by least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher.

BIO-2 Pallid Bat and Western Red Bat. Due to presence of suitable habitat for pallid bat and western red bat adjacent to the proposed work areas, the following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented to avoid potential indirect impacts to these two species:

1. Construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, grubbing, etc.) shall occur outside the bat maternity roosting season (April 1 through August 31) to the extent feasible.

v Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

2. If construction activities are proposed within the bat maternity roosting season, a qualified biologist experienced with bats shall conduct a pre-construction survey within all suitable habitat on the study area. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted 30 days prior to commencing construction activities and shall consist of two separate surveys conducted no more than a week apart. The second and final survey should be conducted no more than seven days prior to commencing construction activities. The pre-construction surveys should be conducted using a detector for echolocation calls, such as an Anabat bat detector system. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to MNWD.

If the qualified biologist determines that no pallid bat or western red bat maternity roosts are present, the activities shall be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that pallid bat and/or western red bat maternity roosts are present, the following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented:

a. No construction activities may occur within 300 feet of any pallid bat or western red bat maternity roosts to the extent feasible. A qualified biologist shall clearly delineate any pallid bat and/or western red bat maternity roosts and any required avoidance buffers, which shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities.

b. If construction activities are proposed within 300 feet of a maternity roost, a biological monitor shall be required to observe the behavior of any roosting pallid bat and/or western red bat. The construction supervisor shall be notified if the construction activities appear to be altering the bats’ normal roosting behavior. No construction activities will be allowed within 300 feet of pallid bat or western red bat maternity roosts until the additional minimization measures are taken, as determined by the biological monitor. The biological monitor shall prepare written documentation of all monitoring activities and any additional minimization measures that were taken, which shall be submitted to CDFW at the completion of construction activities.

BIO-3 Nesting Birds. Construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside of the general bird nesting season for migratory birds, which is February 15 through August 31 for songbirds and January 15 to August 31 for raptors to the extent feasible.

1. If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the general bird nesting season for migratory birds and raptors (January 15 through August 31), MNWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey of potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active nests belonging to migratory birds and raptors afforded protection under the MBTA and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code. The pre-construction survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to MNWD.

vi Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

fledged the nest and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, or as determined by the qualified biologist. The biological monitor may modify the buffer or propose other recommendations in order to minimize disturbance to nesting birds.

BIO-4 Southern Western Pond Turtle and Two-Striped Garter Snake. A clearance survey for southern western pond turtle and two-striped garter snake shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the proposed work areas no more than 14 days prior to construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, grubbing, etc.). The clearance survey shall be conducted within the work areas. If the qualified biologist determines that southern western pond turtles and/or two-striped garter snakes are present within the work areas during the clearance survey, no construction shall occur until the qualified biologist determines that the pond turtles and/or garter snakes have moved out of the work areas on their own accord. Once the qualified biologist determines that there are no southern western pond turtles or two-striped garter snakes within the work areas, an exclusionary fence shall be placed between suitable habitat and the work areas to prevent pond turtles and/or garter snakes from reentering the work area. The qualified biologist shall determine the placement of the exclusionary fencing. Prior to commencement of construction activities and after the exclusionary fencing has been erected, a final clearance survey shall be conducted within the work areas to confirm there are no southern western turtles and/or garter snakes within the work area. Exclusionary fencing will be required to stay in place for the duration of any construction activities to deter southern western pond turtles and/or two-striped garter snakes from entering the work areas. The results of the clearance surveys shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to MNWD.

CUL-1 Ground disturbing activities during construction will be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor. If cultural material is encountered during monitoring, both the archaeologist and the Native American monitor would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect activity in the area of the find while the cultural material is documented, and a decision is made regarding the significance/eligibility of the find and whether additional excavation, analysis, or other mitigation measures are required. Determinations of significance will be made in consultation among the archaeological Principal Investigator, Native American monitor, and MNWD staff. In the event that human remains are discovered, the County Coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. All requirements of Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.

vii Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

viii Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The following Initial Study addresses the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of Moulton Niguel Water District’s (MNWD’s) proposed Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 (I-5) and Oso Creek Project (project). This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended and the State CEQA Guidelines.

1.1 INITIAL STUDY INFORMATION SHEET

1. Project title:

Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek Project

2. Lead agency name and address:

Moulton Niguel Water District, 26161 Gordon Road, Laguna Hills, CA 92653, Building 1

3. Contact person and phone number:

Contact: David Larsen Phone: (949) 425-3578

4. Project location:

The project area is generally located at I-5, approximately 0.30 mile to the south of Oso Parkway and one mile north of Crown Valley Parkway in the City of Mission Viejo, Orange County, California (City; Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Aerial Vicinity). The project area straddles I-5, with Mission Viejo Country Club in the eastern portions and MNWD’s Wastewater Plant 3A in the western portions.

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

Moulton Niguel Water District, 26161 Gordon Road, Laguna Hills, CA 92653

6. General Plan designation:

City of Mission Viejo: The land use designation for the project area is R (Recreation).

7. Zoning designation:

City of Mission Viejo: The zoning designation for the project area is R (Recreation).

8. Description of project:

MNWD is proposing replacement of existing potable water (PW) and recycled water (RW) pipelines that run underneath the I-5 freeway using trenchless microtunneling installation methods. The PW and RW pipelines transport water to and from existing pump stations located on each side of the freeway.

1 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

Project Background and Need

MNWD’s Oso Pump Station is located at 27198 Camino Capistrano in Mission Viejo. The station pumps PW to MNWD’s 650 Zone of its PW system, including to customers on the east side of I-5 through an existing 14-inch pipeline. The District has experienced several failures of this pipeline within the limits of the Oso Creek, causing emergency repairs to be made.

MNWD’s Galivan Recycled Water Pump Station is located nearby at 26724 Camino Capistrano. The station pumps RW from the Galivan RW Reservoir to MNWD’s 450 Zone of its RW system, including to customers on the east side of I-5 through existing 8-inch and 12-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipelines that are joint-trenched with an existing Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) 20-inch pipeline. This portion of the MNWD’s 450 Zone also distributes RW to and from SMWD’s Upper Oso Reservoir for seasonal storage through the SMWD RW system. These existing 8-inch and 12-inch pipelines have experienced increased maintenance requirements in recent years and are currently undersized to handle anticipated future flows.

In addition, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is currently in the final design phase of a project to widen the I-5 freeway in the area. The expansion of the freeway would conflict with portions of MNWD’s existing infrastructure such as the aforementioned PW and RW pipelines, which increases the urgency for the proposed replacements to occur.

Project Description

MNWD would install the new PW and RW pipelines between the Caltrans bridge piers and below the potential scour depth of Oso Creek utilizing trenchless microtunneling installation methods (see Figure 3, Proposed Project). The new PW pipeline that crosses from west of I-5 to east of I-5 would be an approximately 900-linear foot (LF), 21-inch diameter pipeline and the new RW pipeline that crosses from west of I-5 to east of I-5 would be an approximately 600-LF, 30-inch diameter pipeline. The portions of the 21-inch and 30-inch pipelines that cross under I-5 would be encased in a 72-inch diameter steel casing.

On the east side of I-5, the PW pipeline would continue as a split to the north and to the south from the receiving shaft for the 21-inch PW pipeline. A 12-inch PW pipe would run for approximately 65 linear feet to the north to connect to an existing PW pipeline using open-cut trenching, and another 12-inch PW pipe would run for approximately 80 linear feet to the south underneath Oso Creek to an additional microtunneling entry shaft. This pipeline would continue further for approximately 120 linear feet to the south and back to the west to connect to an existing PW pipeline using open-cut trenching. Also on the east side of I-5, the RW pipeline would connect to the existing 8-inch and 10-inch RW pipelines located slightly to the north of the receiving pit using open-cut trenching.

On the west side of I-5, the PW pipeline would connect to the existing PW line from the launching shaft through a pipeline extension installed with open-cut trenching that would run to the west and then to the north. The RW pipeline would connect to the existing RW line from the launching shaft through a pipeline extension installed with open-cut trenching that would run to the north and then to the west, just south of the Galivan RW Reservoir.

All pipelines would be steel. The project would also perform nine pothole excavations within the work area. As part of the replacement of the PW main pipeline, the reconnection to the existing pipelines would be made such that the existing valves that are currently within the creek bed are abandoned and

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

! !

%&g( ! !

! AZUZA ?ø

! !

%&e( ! !

%&o(! ?¥

SAN Puddingstone

! ! ! ONTARIO

! GABRIEL Reservoir

! !

! !"`$

! !

! !"`$ !

! !

! POMONA !

WEST ! !

! !

! COVINA !

! SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ?z !

! ?z ! ! ?¬ !

! ! !

! !

! CHINO !

! !

! !"^$ ! !

WHITTIER !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! LOS ANGELES COUNTY !"a$

DOWNEY ! !

! !

! RIVERSIDE !

! LA !

! !

HABRA !

! !

%&q( !

! ! ?u !

! NORWALK BUENA

! ?Æ

! !

! PARK ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ?Æ

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

! ! ! !

! !

! ORANGE COUNTY ! ! !

%&o( ?Æ !

! !

! ! CORONA

! !

! ANAHEIM !

! ! !

! ! ! ! Lake

%&l( ! ! !

! !

! Mathews !

! !

! Irvine !

! ! ! Lake ! WESTMINSTER

LONG !

! !"a$ !

BEACH !

! !

?ì !

! Santa Ana Mountains

! ! SANTA

! !

! ANA

! !

! AÝ

%&l( !

! ?s

! !

! ! !

! ! !"^$ !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

AÎ !

! !

! ! !

! !

HUNTINGTON !

! !

%&l( !

BEACH IRVINE ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! NEWPORT !

! !

BEACH ?° !

! !

! MISSION ! !

! !

! VIEJO

! !

! ! !

! !

! Study Area

! !

! ?±

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

LAGUNA!

! ! !

BEACH ! !

Pacific ! RIVERSIDE COUNTY

! !

! SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Ocean ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

SAN !

! !

CLEMENTE !

! !

!"^$ !

CAMP !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! PENDELETON

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\ISMND\Fig1_Regional.mxdGHD-04 1/9/2018 -EC !

! !

Source:! Base Map Layers (Esri, 2013)

Miles !

0 6 !

! !

K !

! !

Regional Location!

! ! ! Figure 1 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

Oso Parkway

Mission Viejo Country Club

Moulton Marguerite Parkway Ranch Park

Cabot Road

Potable Water and Recycled Water Study Area ¦¨§5

Camino Capistrano

Crown Valley Parkway H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\ISMND\Fig2_Aerial.mxdGHD-04 1/9/2018 -EC Source: Aerial (NAIP, 2015) 0 1,000 Feet K

Aerial Vicinity Figure 2 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek Study Area Project Components Pot Holes Launching Shaft Receiving Shaft Proposed Work Area Steel Casing Potable Water Line Mission Viejo Recycled Water Line Country Club

¦¨§5

Cabot Road

Camino Capistrano H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\ISMND\Fig3_Proposed_Proj.mxdGHD-04 2/27/2018 -EC Source: Aerial (NAIP, 2015) 0 100 Feet K

Proposed Project Figure 3 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

new connections are made outside the limits of the creek. The existing pipelines would be abandoned in place and would not be removed.

Microtunneling is a method of trenchless installation that uses a steerable, unmanned microtunnel boring machine (MTBM) launched from an entry shaft toward a pre-excavated receiving shaft. As the MTBM excavates the tunnel, jacking pipes are simultaneously jacked behind the MTBM. Jacks are located in the launching shaft. This process enables immediate and continuous support of the tunnel, with excavation and lining occurring simultaneously in a single operation. For this project, microtunneling would be a two-pass method with the first pass being the installation of the steel casing. The second pass would be the installation of the PW and RW pipes. Microtunneling is necessary due to the potential to encounter groundwater, and to minimize and avoid impacts to the environment (e.g., to avoid trenching through Oso Creek).

For the 72-inch steel casing containing the 21-inch PW pipeline and 30-inch RW pipeline, the entry shaft (located on the west side of I-5) would be approximately 45 feet long by 15 feet wide in area and 20 feet in depth (pending confirmation from the geotechnical investigation), and the receiving pit (located on the east side of I-5) would be circular with an approximate diameter of 14 feet and would be 20 feet in depth (pending confirmation from the geotechnical investigation). For the 12-inch PW pipeline crossing under Oso Creek, the entry shaft (located on the south side of Oso Creek) would be circular with an approximate diameter of 14 feet, and would have a depth of 20 feet (pending confirmation from the geotechnical investigation). The receiving shaft for the 12-inch PW pipeline would be the same receiving shaft for the larger pipelines. Following installation of the pipelines, the jacking and receiving shafts would be filled in and re-compacted to their existing contours.

Total construction activities are estimated to have a duration of four to five months. Construction is anticipated to begin in fall 2018 and end before the anticipated start of the I-5 widening by Caltrans in Spring 2019. Construction would occur during the allowed hours in the City Noise Ordinance (between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.), and no construction would occur on Sunday or a legal holiday. Construction equipment would be typical of pipeline construction, including backhoes, a crane, front loader, dump trucks, water truck, flat-bed pipe delivery trucks, the aforementioned MTBM, and equipment support trucks. Staging of pipeline materials and equipment would likely occur along Camino Capistrano and near the Plant 3A treatment plant. In the event that this site is not available, staging would occur within another developed location in the vicinity of the project site. The construction equipment driven inside the golf course will be restricted to stay on the concrete cart paths. Spoil material from tunnel construction during microtunneling activities would be hauled to an approved off-site location.

Following construction, project activities would be limited to routine maintenance of the pipeline facilities, similar to ongoing maintenance of the existing pipelines.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Immediate surrounding land uses include Mission Viejo Country Club to the east; open space, a transmission tower, I-5, and Mission Viejo Country Club to the south; Metrolink railroad track and Wastewater Plant 3A to the west; and Wastewater Plant 3A, I-5, and Mission Viejo Golf Course to the north. Oso Creek runs through both the eastern and western portions of the project site, as well as underneath I-5.

3 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

• Caltrans: Encroachment Permit • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) • Orange County Flood Control

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has this consultation begun?

Letters regarding the project were sent on November 9, 2017 to the contacts listed by the NAHC. Four written responses have been received as of March 14, 2018. The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians and San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians wrote that the project site has little cultural significance or is outside their territory boundaries. The California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. believed that the project area is sensitive for cultural resources. The Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation requested that Native and archaeological monitoring occur for all ground disturbing activities, due to the location of the project near the creeks and considering that there were no environmental laws in place at the time of previous development. On August 2015 and in accordance with AB 52, the Juaneño Band of Missions Indians requested formal notices of and information on all proposed projects of the MNWD. MNWD contacted applicable Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area, including the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes, and Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Romero, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, on February 20, 2018. A letter was received from the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians on February 28, 2018, who did not request consultation.

4 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that may require mitigation to reduce the impact from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less than Significant” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

 Aesthetics  Agriculture/Forestry Resources  Air Quality

 Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology/Soils

 Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards/Hazardous Materials  Hydrology/Water Quality

 Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise

 Population/Housing  Public Services  Recreation

 Transportation/Traffic  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities/Service Systems

 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

1.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

8 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

I. AESTHETICS

Less Than AESTHETICS: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings     within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or     quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which     would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is within the I-5 corridor in an urbanized, developed area. Scenic views, including views of the golf course and vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the project site, could be temporarily affected during construction of the proposed project by the presence of construction equipment. However, the visual area is dominated by developed uses, predominantly due to the highway and existing utility infrastructure in the area, and construction equipment would not significantly impact these existing views. Once construction is complete, the proposed pipelines would have no visual impact due to being located below ground. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No Impact. The portion of I-5 where the project site is located is not a designated or eligible state scenic highway. The nearest scenic highway is State Route 74, located approximately 4.7 miles south of the project site (Caltrans 2017). As such, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and no impacts would occur. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in a temporary change of appearance along the project alignment during construction. Construction equipment, signage, vehicles, and soil stockpiles in the construction work and staging areas would be visible to those traveling along I-5 as well as users of the golf course. These impacts would be temporary and would be consistent with the developed visual character of the area from I-5 and existing utility infrastructure. Upon completion of construction, no permanent changes to visual character or quality of the project alignment would occur, as the pipelines would be located below ground. Therefore, impacts to visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.

9 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the construction and operation of below ground water pipelines. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours, and no supplemental lighting would be required during such activities. Construction equipment would not be a substantial source of glare or shadows. Once completed, the proposed project improvements would be located below ground and operation would not create shadows, light, or glare. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

Less Than AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and     Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a     Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section l 2220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code     section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land     to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion     of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact. The proposed project site is in an urbanized area with no land mapped as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance (CDC 2016). The project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The proposed project site is in an urbanized area, and would not occur in areas that are under Williamson Act contract or zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, no impacts related to conflicts with existing agricultural zoning would occur.

10 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section l 2220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))??

No Impact. The project area is in an urbanized area and is not zoned as forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. The project area is not within or near forest land. Therefore, project construction and operation would not convert forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area, with no nearby agricultural or forestry land uses. Implementation of the proposed project would not involve changes to the existing environment which would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur.

III. AIR QUALITY

AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the Less Than applicable air quality management or air pollution control Potentially Significant Less Than district may be relied upon to make the following Significant with Significant No determinations. Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable     air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially     to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air     quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant     concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number     of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

No Impact. The project is located in Orange County within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality in the SCAB is regulated by the SCAQMD. As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local

11 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

governments, as well as cooperates actively with applicable federal and state government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary.

The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). An AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The regional plan applicable to the project is the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD 2017).

The two principal criteria for conformance to the AQMP are (1) whether a project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards and (2) whether a project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP (SCAQMD 1993).

As described under Item III.b below, pollutant emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project would not would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Further, the project does not involve a change to General Plan designations or zoning and, therefore, would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. No conflict with the 2016 AQMP would occur with the proposed project. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities would generate combustion emissions from on-site heavy-duty construction equipment and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew and necessary construction materials. Exhaust emissions generated by construction activities would generally result from the use of project construction equipment that includes backhoes, a crane, front loader, dump trucks, water truck, delivery trucks, MBTM, and equipment support trucks. Variables that factor into the total construction emissions generated include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on or off site.

Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing and grading operations. Due to the relatively small size of the project and location within a mostly developed area, construction activities are expected to create minimal fugitive dust as a result of the disturbance associated with the activities. In addition, the project would comply with SCAQMD guidelines, including Rule 403, which requires watering two times daily during grading, ensuring that all exposed surfaces maintain a minimum soil moisture of 12 percent, and limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Emissions of other criteria air pollutants during construction would be limited by the relatively small size of the project, the temporary nature of construction, and the localized area of emission.

Operational emissions of the project would be associated with occasional routine maintenance trips. Consistent with maintenance trips for the existing pipelines, these trips would occur infrequently and would result in negligible criteria air pollutant emissions.

12 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

Therefore, criteria air pollutant emissions from construction and operation of the project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and would be less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The region is a federal and/or state nonattainment area for particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10), particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5), and ozone. For the reasons described above in Item III.a, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants, including precursors to ozone. In addition, daily emissions would be low, temporary in duration, and localized within the immediate project vicinity. Accordingly, cumulative impacts associated with air quality would be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project would be users of the adjacent golf course. For the reasons described for Items III.a through III.c, the proposed project would not generate substantial pollutant concentrations. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less Than Significant Impact. In the short term, diesel exhaust from construction equipment may create noticeable odors near the proposed project; however, the diesel exhaust odors would be temporary and minor, and would not affect a substantial number of people. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Less Than BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or     regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California     Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

13 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

Less Than BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,     etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with     established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or     ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,     or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation. A Biological Technical Report was prepared for the proposed project by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX; 2018a; refer to Appendix A). Potential impacts to sensitive plant and animal species within the project site and vicinity are presented below.

Special-status Plant Species

A total of 43 of the 47 rare plant species recorded within the vicinity of the study area were not considered to have a potential to occur based on geographic range, elevation range, and/or lack of suitable habitat (see Appendix F of Appendix A for the full list). The remaining four species were considered to have a potential to occur in the study area based on the presence of southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh habitats. Due to project design, the project would avoid these vegetation communities and they would not be impacted. Therefore, no impacts to rare plant species would occur.

Special-status Animal Species

Of the 47 special-status animal species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 30 species do not have a potential to occur on the study area due to lack of suitable habitat and two species (tricolored blackbird and grasshopper sparrow) are not expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat for residence and/or breeding, but may disperse through or across the study area to access suitable habitat that would be within the vicinity (see Appendix F of Appendix A for the full list). However, these species would only be present in the study area for a temporary and short duration. Therefore, no significant 74impacts to these sensitive animal species are anticipated to result from the project.

14 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

Of the remaining 17 species, 13 species have a low potential to occur, 3 species have a moderate potential to occur, and 1 species has a high potential to occur. These species are discussed in further detail below.

Low Potential Species

A total of 13 species were determined to have a low potential to occur on the study area based on the presence of low quality habitat, limited acreage of habitat, and lack of recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area. These species include arroyo chub, Coast Range newt, coastal whiptail, long-eared owl, northern harrier, southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, pallid bat, western mastiff bat (foraging potential only), western red bat, pocketed free-tailed bat (foraging potential only), and big free-tailed bat (foraging potential only). Suitable habitat located within the study area would be entirely avoided by the project; no permanent or temporary impacts are proposed to the suitable habitat. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly impact the following species: arroyo chub, Coast Range newt, coastal whiptail, western mastiff bat, pocketed free- tailed bat, or big free-tailed bat. The study area does not support suitable roosting habitat for western mastiff bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, or big free-tailed bat; therefore, no indirect impacts to roosting habitat would result from the project.

Southwestern willow flycatcher is a federally and state listed endangered species. Indirect noise impacts to this species during the nesting season (May 1 through August 31) would be a potentially significant impact. These impacts would be mitigated through mitigation measure BIO-1, described below.

Pallid bat and western red bat are both considered Species of Special Concern (SSC). The I-5 bridge and mature trees located throughout the study area may provide suitable roosting habitat for these species. Although no direct impacts are proposed, indirect impacts within the maternity roosting season would be a potentially significant impact. These impacts would be mitigated through mitigation measure BIO-2, described below.

Since the work areas are adjacent to suitable nesting habitat for long-eared owl, northern harrier, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler, noise generated from project activities may indirectly impact these species during the nesting season. These species are not listed as federal or state endangered or threatened species, although these species are SSC and are protected under Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) regulations. Therefore, indirect impacts during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31 for songbirds and January 15 through August 31 for raptors) would be a potentially significant impact. These impacts would be mitigated through mitigation measure BIO-3, described below.

Moderate Potential Species

A total of three species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area. These species include two-striped gartersnake, white-tailed kite, and least Bell’s vireo. As discussed above, suitable habitat located within the study area would be entirely avoided by the project; no permanent or temporary direct impacts are proposed to suitable habitat.

15 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

White-tailed kite is a state fully protected species. The study area does not support suitable foraging habitat, although suitable nesting habitat is present within the study area. No direct impacts to nesting habitat are proposed, but indirect noise impacts during the nesting season (generally January 15 through August 31) would be a potentially significant impact. These impacts would be mitigated through mitigation measure BIO-3, described below.

Least Bell’s vireo is a federally listed endangered species. Indirect impacts (e.g., from construction noise) to this species during the nesting season (March 15 through August 31) would be a significant impact. These impacts would be mitigated through mitigation measure BIO-1, described below.

High Potential Species

One species, southern western pond turtle, which is a SSC, was determined to have a high potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area. Although the study area supports suitable habitat for this species, no suitable habitat is present within the work areas. Since the work areas are adjacent to suitable habitat for this species, potentially significant impacts could occur if an individual incidentally enters into the work areas. These impacts would be mitigated through mitigation measure BIO-4, described below.

With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts to sensitive animal species would be less than significant:

16 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

a. No construction activities may occur within 500 feet of an active nest of a least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher to the extent feasible. A qualified biologist shall clearly delineate the required avoidance buffer around the active least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher nest. The buffer shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities. b. If construction activities are proposed within 500 feet of an occupied nest, a biological monitor shall be required to observe the behavior of any breeding least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher. The construction supervisor shall be notified if the construction activities appear to be altering the birds’ normal breeding behavior. No construction activities will be allowed within 500 feet of an occupied nest until the additional minimization measures are taken. Such measures may include retaining a qualified acoustician to determine ambient noise levels and project-related noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat. Noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat shall not exceed an hourly average of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA), or a 3 dBA increase in noise levels if ambient noise levels exceed 60 dBA. If project-related noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat are above 60 dBA or the 3 dBA increase in noise occurs, additional minimization measures shall be taken to reduce project-related noise levels to an acceptable level as determined by the biological monitor. Measures may include, but are not limited to, limitation on the use of certain equipment, placement of equipment, restrictions on the simultaneous use of equipment, use of noise barriers, or other noise attenuation methods as deemed appropriate by the biologist and acoustician. The USFWS and/or CDFW shall be notified of additional minimization measures taken to reduce noise during construction activities. If the biological monitor determines that the construction activities are still affecting the birds’ behavior after implementing the additional minimization measures, the noise generating construction activities will be discontinued until USFWS and/or CDFW are contacted to discuss alternative methods. The biological monitor shall prepare written documentation of all monitoring activities at the completion of construction activities, which shall be submitted to CDFW/or USFWS. c. All project personnel shall attend a training program presented by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. The training program will inform project personnel about the life history of least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher and all avoidance and minimization measures. d. The construction contractor shall only allow construction activities to occur during daylight hours and high noise levels shall generally be limited according to these hours. e. The construction contractor shall require functional mufflers on all construction equipment (stationery or mobile) used within or immediately adjacent to any 500-foot avoidance buffers to reduce construction equipment noise. Equipment shall be situated so that noise generated from the equipment is not directed towards habitat occupied by least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher.

17 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

f. The construction contractor will place staging areas as far as feasible from any nest occupied by least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher.

1. Construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, grubbing, etc.) shall occur outside the bat maternity roosting season (April 1 through August 31) to the extent feasible.

2. If construction activities are proposed within the bat maternity roosting season, a qualified biologist experienced with bats shall conduct a pre-construction survey within all suitable habitat on the study area. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted 30 days prior to commencing construction activities and shall consist of two separate surveys conducted no more than a week apart. The second and final survey should be conducted no more than seven days prior to commencing construction activities. The pre- construction surveys should be conducted using a detector for echolocation calls, such as an Anabat bat detector system. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to MNWD.

c. No construction activities may occur within 300 feet of any pallid bat or western red bat maternity roosts to the extent feasible. A qualified biologist shall clearly delineate any pallid bat and/or western red bat maternity roosts and any required avoidance buffers, which shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities.

d. If construction activities are proposed within 300 feet of a maternity roost, a biological monitor shall be required to observe the behavior of any roosting pallid bat and/or western red bat. The construction supervisor shall be notified if the construction activities appear to be altering the bats’ normal roosting behavior. No construction activities will be allowed within 300 feet of pallid bat or western red bat maternity roosts until the additional minimization measures are taken, as determined by the biological monitor. The biological monitor shall prepare written documentation of all monitoring activities and any additional minimization measures that were taken, which shall be submitted to CDFW at the completion of construction activities.

18 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

of potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active nests belonging to migratory birds and raptors afforded protection under the MBTA and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code. The pre-construction survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to MNWD.

2. If the qualified biologist determines that no active migratory bird or raptor nests occur, the activities shall be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that an active migratory bird or raptor nest is present, no impacts within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the active nest shall occur until the young have fledged the nest and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, or as determined by the qualified biologist. The biological monitor may modify the buffer or propose other recommendations in order to minimize disturbance to nesting birds.

To avoid potential impacts to southern western pond turtles and/or two-striped garter snakes from vehicles and construction equipment adjacent to suitable habitat, all project personnel shall attend a training program presented by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of construction activities. The training program shall inform project personnel about the life history of southern western pond turtle and two-striped garter snake and all avoidance and minimization measures. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. Nine vegetation communities/land cover types occur within the project area: freshwater marsh, southern willow scrub, disturbed, disturbed/ornamental, non-native vegetation, ornamental,

19 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

park, open water, and developed. One of the nine vegetation communities/land cover types, southern willow scrub, is considered a sensitive natural community.

Southern willow scrub consists of dense, broadleaved, winter-deciduous stands of trees dominated by shrubby willows. It is the dominant vegetation community at the project site, found within the La Paz Creek and Oso Creek channels.

The proposed pipelines would be installed below the potential scour depth of Oso Creek utilizing microtunneling installation methods. This trenchless method would avoid disturbing the creek channel, and would therefore avoid disturbing the southern willow scrub. The launching shaft located west of I-5 would be within a disturbed area. The launching shaft and receiving shaft located east of I-5 would be within the golf course. Installation and operation of the proposed pipelines would not have an adverse effect on riparian habitat or a sensitive natural community, and no impacts would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact. The project site supports drainages that are considered jurisdictional streambeds pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, as regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Sections 404/401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project, however, was designed to use microtunneling to help ensure that no temporary or permanent impacts to jurisdictional streambeds would occur. Therefore, the project is not required to apply for a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, a Section 404 Nationwide Permit, or a 401 Water Quality Certification. No impacts to federally protected wetlands would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is not located within a regional wildlife corridor and does not serve as a wildlife nursery site. It has no direct connectivity to two or more large blocks of habitat and is constrained by existing development. The project site does, however, support patches of native southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh in addition to ornamental vegetation, which provide habitat for local wildlife movement and migratory birds. Wildlife movement would mostly occur within Oso Creek. Mammals that are adapted to human disturbance may use the existing culvert under I-5 to move from the eastern portion to the western portion of the project area. Birds may fly over existing development to access the project area for foraging and/or nesting. Installation of the pipelines would not permanently impact local wildlife movement because native vegetation would not be disturbed, and disturbance to non-native vegetation and disturbed/developed areas would be temporary. Disturbed areas would be returned to pre-project conditions following construction.

Although the project would only temporarily impact non-native vegetation, disturbed areas, and developed areas, impacts from construction activities could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests, including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the MBTA and is considered a potentially significant impact. Additionally, vegetation located adjacent to the work areas offers nesting habitat for protected nesting bird species; therefore, indirect impacts could occur to birds nesting in these areas. Mitigation measure BIO-4, described above

20 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

under Item IV.a, would ensure the project is in compliance with MBTA regulations, and would reduce impacts to less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact. Chapter 14.30 of the Mission Viejo Municipal Code is the City Tree Ordinance, and “regulates the planting, maintenance, protection, and removal of trees and shrubs on public streets, parks, and other city-owned property.” The ordinance requires written permission from the city forester for the disturbance or removal of a tree or shrub within city-owned property, and replacement of the tree or shrub upon permitted removal. Through utilization of the trenchless method of pipeline installation, tree removal is not anticipated as part of the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City Tree Ordinance, and no impact would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. The western portion of the project site is located within the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), which is a multi-jurisdictional conservation plan that includes portions of Orange County and multiple cities within the County. The eastern portion of the project site is located within the Orange County Southern Subregion HCP, which is also a multi-jurisdictional conservation plan that includes portions of southern Orange County. Although portions of the project site fall within the NCCP/HCP and HCP subregions, MNWD is not a Participating Entity of the NCCP/HCP and is not a Participating Landowner of the HCP. Therefore, project activities are not covered under either plan. Although the project does not have any permit obligations, the project would need to ensure activities are not in conflict with either conservation plan. The study area is not located within any reserves identified by either plan and therefore would not conflict with the conservation goals of the plans. No impacts would occur.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Less Than CULTURAL RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a     historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an     archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological     resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred     outside of formal cemeteries?

21 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

No Impact. A Cultural Resources Study was prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2018b; refer to Appendix B). A records search of the project site and a one-mile radius was conducted at the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC), and a pedestrian survey was conducted at the project site, to evaluate the presence of historical resources. The records search indicated that one potentially historical resource, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, is located adjacent to the western portion of the project site, across Camino Capistrano.

According to the 2002 site record, the resource “consists of an approximately 14.7-mile segment of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (formerly Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe) Railway. Most of the rail line dates originally of the 1880s. However, as a working railroad after more than 100 years of continuous operation, its current physical characteristics reflect very little of the historic origin. The existing tracks and other associated railroad features are mostly modern in origin, and show no particular historical characteristics today.” The railway is currently the Metrolink railroad track and is in modern use.

The project would avoid the railway, as construction activities would occur east of Camino Capistrano. Therefore, installation of the proposed pipelines would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and no impacts would occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation. A records search at the SCCIC, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, Native American outreach, and a pedestrian survey were conducted for the project area to evaluate the presence of archaeological resources. The SCCIC has records of nine cultural resources within one mile of the project site, none of which are located within the project site. No new cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey conducted by HELIX on November 13, 2017, and the potential for previously undetected archaeological resources is low due to the highly disturbed nature of the site.

HELIX contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 2, 2017 for a SLF search. The response from the NAHC, received on November 3, 2017, noted that a records search for the SLF was completed with negative results, but that the area is sensitive for cultural resources. Letters regarding the project were sent on November 9, 2017 to the contacts listed by the NAHC. Four written responses have been received as of March 14, 2018. The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians and San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians wrote that the project site has little cultural significance or is outside their territory boundaries. The California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. believed that the project area is sensitive for cultural resources. The Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation requested that Native and archaeological monitoring occur for all ground disturbing activities, due to the location of the projaect near the creeks and considering that there were no environmental laws in place at the time of previous development.

While no cultural resources have been identified within the project area, there are important cultural resources in the vicinity and the NAHC, Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, and California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. have identified the area as sensitive for cultural resources. In addition, the project is located in an area with alluvial soils, which typically have higher concentrations of cultural resources. As such, there is a potential for subsurface cultural resources to be present within the project area that may be encountered during ground-disturbing construction

22 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

activities. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be potentially significant. The following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level:

Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Open Space for the Preservation of Natural Resources Map of the City General Plan (Figure COS-1 of City 2009), the project site is not located in an area with the potential for paleontological resources, and the discovery or disturbance of such resources is unlikely. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation. No formal cemeteries or records of human remains have been identified in the project area following the records search at the SCCIC, SLF search, and pedestrian survey, and the pipeline alignment would not be located within a formal cemetery. The proposed pipelines would be installed within disturbed or developed land. As a result, it is not anticipated that the project would result in the disturbance of human remains. However, due to the cultural sensitivity of the area, the potential exists to unexpectedly encounter human remains, and impacts to human remains would be potentially significant. To reduce impacts to less than significant, mitigation measure CUL-1, described above, would be implemented.

23 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Less Than Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or     based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?    

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?    

iv. Landslides?    

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and     potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks     to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems     where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?

No Impact. Although in a seismically active region, the project site is not located within a known earthquake fault zone (California Geological Survey [CGS] 2015). The project, including the workers and the pipeline itself, is therefore not at risk from fault rupture from a known earthquake fault, and no impact would occur.

24 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within Seismic Zone 4 (City 2009). Seismic Zone 4 is the highest Seismic Zone, and therefore would subject the proposed project to potential seismic ground shaking. Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any number of known active and potentially active faults in the region, including the Newport-Inglewood Fault to the west and the Elsinore Fault to the east. However, construction of the proposed pipelines would incorporate measures to accommodate projected seismic loading, pursuant to existing guidelines such as the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook Committee of Public Works Standards, Inc. 2015) and the International Building Code (IBC; International Code Council 2015). These guidelines are produced through joint efforts by industry groups to provide standard specifications for engineering and construction activities, including measures to accommodate seismic loading parameters. The referenced guidelines, while not comprising formal regulatory requirements per se, are widely accepted by regulatory authorities and are regularly included in related standards such as municipal building and grading codes. In addition, construction of the proposed pipelines would follow guidelines within the California Building Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2). The CBC is based on the previously described IBC, with appropriate amendments and modifications to reflect site-specific conditions in California. Based on the incorporation of applicable measures into design and construction of the proposed pipelines, the potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking are assessed as less than significant.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Less Than Significant Impact. The potential for seismic-related ground failure is associated with the probability of severe ground shaking as a result of an earthquake at a nearby active fault. Liquefaction is the phenomenon where saturated granular soils develop high-pore water pressures during seismic shaking and behave like a heavy fluid. This phenomenon generally occurs in areas of high seismicity where groundwater is shallow and loose granular soils or hydraulic fill soils subject to liquefaction are present. For liquefaction to occur, loose granular sediments below the groundwater table must be present and shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration must occur. Areas of potential liquefaction within the City occur within and adjacent to the channel of Oso Creek (City 2009). Construction and design of the proposed pipelines, however, would incorporate the measures outlined in VI.a.ii. to accommodate potential liquefaction and ground failure. Based on the incorporation of applicable guidelines for the proposed pipeline, the potential impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant.

iv. Landslides?

Less Than Significant Impact. Though the general vicinity of the project area is characterized by moderately sloping hills, the project site is not located in an area that is prone to earthquake-induced landslides (City 2009). Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact. Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts would be addressed through a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared specifically for the proposed water pipelines, in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The SWPPP incorporates best management practices in accordance with the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook to control erosion and protect the quality of surface

25 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

water runoff during project construction. Based upon compliance with the NPDES permit and implementation of a SWPPP, impacts would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

Less Than Significant Impact. Although the potential exists for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse, construction and design of the proposed pipelines would incorporate measures to accommodate geologic units or soil that are unstable, pursuant to standard guidelines from the Greenbook, IBC, and CBC, as discussed in Item VI.a.ii. Based on the incorporation of standard guidelines into pipeline design and construction, the potential impacts associated with a geologic unit or soil that is unstable would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are soils subject to volumetric fluctuations in response to changes in moisture content (wetting and drying). Expansive soils have a substantial amount of clay particles, which can both release water (shrink) or absorb and hold water (swell). The majority of the project site is underlain by Corralitos loamy sand, which generally lacks clay materials (National Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] 2017). Therefore, there is a low chance for the presence of expansive soils on site, and impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed as part of the proposed project. No impacts would occur.

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Less Than GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the     environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of     greenhouse gases? a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) defines greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to include the following compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous

26 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). As individual GHGs have varying heat-trapping properties and atmospheric lifetimes, GHG emissions are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units for comparison. The CO2e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent measure. The most common GHGs related to the project are CO2 (CO2e = 1), CH4 (CO2e = 21), and N2O (CO2e = 310).

There are no established federal, state, or local quantitative thresholds applicable to the project to determine the quantity of GHG emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment. CARB, the SCAQMD, and various cities and agencies have proposed, or adopted on an interim basis, thresholds of significance or screening threshold levels that require the implementation of GHG emission reduction measures. Because the project is not a residential or commercial land use development project, the SCAQMD adopted interim screening threshold of 10,000 metric tons (MT) CO2e for industrial projects is being used for project consistency with CEQA (SCAQMD 2008). The 10,000 MT CO2e per year screening threshold was developed by analyzing the capture of 90 percent or more of future discretionary development for industrial projects. Construction emissions are typically amortized over a duration of 30 years in the screening threshold. Examples of projects that would generate 10,000 MT CO2e per year include residential development with 550 dwelling units; office space with 400,000 square feet of development; retail space with 120,000 square feet of development, or medium to larger industrial buildings (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2008). Given the limited scope of construction of the proposed project and since construction emissions are amortized over 30 years, construction GHG emissions would be relatively minor. In addition, with only minor maintenance trips occurring during operation, operational GHG emissions would be negligible. Therefore, the proposed project’s scale and scope would generate GHG emissions on a much lower scale than the typical types of projects that generate 10,000 MT CO2e. Therefore, GHG emissions from the project would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significant Impact. Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established statutory limits on GHG emissions in California. Under AB 32, CARB is responsible for adopting rules and regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines the state’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit and future emissions reduction targets established by Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. As a follow-up to AB 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was passed by the California legislature in August 2016 to codify California’s GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The SCAQMD guidelines were established for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs to meet the state requirements of AB 32.

As discussed under Item VII.a, the 10,000 MT CO2e per year significance threshold was designed to capture a substantial fraction of future industrial development. The capture of 90 percent of new development establishes a strong basis for demonstrating that cumulative reductions are being achieved across the state, in accordance with AB 32 goals (CAPCOA 2008).

Project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the 10,000 MT CO2e per year significance threshold; therefore, the proposed project would not result in emissions that would adversely affect state-wide attainment of GHG emission reduction goals, as described in AB 32. Emissions would therefore have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change impacts, and the project

27 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Less Than HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or     disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and     accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-     quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code     Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project     result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or     working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency     evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where     wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the project may require the use of hazardous materials (fuels, lubricants, solvents, etc.), which would require proper storage, handling, use, and disposal. The use of these materials would be temporary and in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. Operation of the proposed below-ground pipelines would not require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

28 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. During the temporary, short-term construction period, there is the possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction equipment maintenance. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures to avoid or minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project with respect to exposing the public or the environment to hazardous materials through upset and accident conditions would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. As discussed in Item VIII.a, construction of the project may require the use of hazardous materials (fuels, lubricants, solvents, etc.), which would require proper storage, handling, use, and disposal. The potential use of these materials would be temporary and in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. Additionally, the closest portion (the eastern extent) of the project site would be approximately 0.3 mile from the closest school, Viejo Elementary School. Therefore, hazardous materials associated with the proposed project would not be within one-quarter mile of a school, and no impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) requirements, the SWRCB GeoTracker database and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database were searched for hazardous materials sites within the project area. The proposed pipeline alignment is not on or adjacent to a known hazardous materials site on the DTSC’s EnviroStor database (DTSC 2017) or the SWRCB GeoTracker (SWRCB 2015). The closest hazardous site is located approximately 0.35 mile north of the project site, and is a completed cleanup site. Construction and operation of the project would not disturb this site and no significant hazards to the public or the environment would occur from a hazardous materials site. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No impact. The nearest public airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately 13 miles northwest of the project site. Due to this distance, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no impact would occur.

29 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest private airstrip, Mission Hospital Heliport, is located approximately one mile southeast of the project site. As below ground PW and RW pipelines, the proposed project does not include components, such as high-profile structures, that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The presence of project-related workers in the area would be limited to a small number during the approximately four to five month construction period. Based on the described conditions, impacts related to airport safety hazards would be less than significant. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. Replacement of the existing pipelines would use trenchless microtunneling installation methods and would not require or result in road closures. Operationally, the below ground pipelines would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area, and, according to the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones map (CAL FIRE 2007), is not in a moderate, high, or very high Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project would not expose people or structures to risk from wildland fires, and no impact would occur.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Less Than HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge     requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate     of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a     stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

30 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

Less Than HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or     amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage     systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?     g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal flood Hazard Boundary or Flood     Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which     would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a     result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?     a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less Than Significant Impact. Potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be limited to short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation. Because the proposed project involves the construction of below-ground PW and RW pipelines, no potential long-term impacts to water quality would result. As required under the NPDES, a SWPPP would be created specifically for construction of the proposed pipelines. The plan would address erosion control measures that would be implemented to avoid erosion impacts to exposed soil associated with construction activities. The SWPPP would include a program of BMPs to provide erosion and sediment control and reduce potential impacts to water quality that may result from construction activities. BMPs would include but not be limited to such measures as street sweeping and vacuuming, sand bag barriers, storm drain inlet protection, wind erosion control, and stabilized construction entrances and exits. Implementation of the SWPPP for the proposed pipelines and associated BMPs would reduce or eliminate the discharge of potential pollutants from stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table

31 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

No Impact. The project does not propose the use of groundwater. The pipelines would be located underneath an existing freeway and would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces, and construction of the proposed project would not result in a depletion of groundwater supplies. Therefore, no impact to groundwater supplies would occur. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Less Than Significant Impact. The pipeline alignment would intersect Oso Creek. The pipelines would be installed between the Caltrans bridge piers associated with I-5, below the potential scour depth of the creek utilizing trenchless microtunneling installation methods. As such, replacement of the pipelines would not alter the course of the creek or the drainage pattern of the site. The microtunneling installation method would result in the disturbance of soil at the launching and receiving shafts that could be subjected to erosion if a rain event were to occur during construction. However, soil disturbance would be temporary, and, as discussed in Item IX.a, project construction would comply with applicable NPDES requirements through implementation of a SWPPP specific for the project and implementation of applicable BMPs to avoid erosion and siltation. Therefore, impacts to drainage patterns resulting in erosion or siltation would be less than significant. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Less Than Significant Impact. See Item IX.c. Project implementation would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area. Construction and operation of the below ground pipelines would not increase the amount of impervious surface and would therefore not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Flooding would not result from project implementation, and impacts would be less than significant. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

No Impact. As below ground water pipelines, the project would not result in a net increase in impervious surfaces. As discussed in Item IX.a, construction of the proposed pipelines would comply with applicable NPDES requirements through implementation of a SWPPP specific for the project and implementation of applicable BMPs to limit polluted runoff. Project operation would not create or contribute runoff water or provide additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, no impact would occur. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Item IX.a. Through conformance with applicable regulatory standards and implementation of BMPs, the project would not substantially degrade water quality, and less than significant impacts would occur.

32 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. The project site is within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area (FEMA 2009). However, the proposed project does not include housing. Therefore, no impact would occur. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (FEMA 2009). The pipelines would be located below ground and would have no long-term potential to impede or redirect flood flows. During the construction period, construction equipment would be present on site and would have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows in the instance of a flood. However, the construction equipment would be present on a temporary basis and would be expected to be moved in the event of a flood. Therefore, impacts to structures within flood hazard areas would be less than significant. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

No Impact. The closest dam, located at Laguna Niguel Lake, is approximately 2.6 miles southwest of the project site. Water from the lake, in the event of dam failure, would flow west towards the Pacific Ocean, away from the project site. Additionally, the below ground pipelines would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Therefore, no impact from the failure of a levee or dam would occur. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact. The proposed project alignment is approximately 6.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is too far inland for inundation by tsunami. The project is not adjacent to slopes capable of producing mudflows, and, as a below ground pipeline, the project would not be at risk from such an event. Though there are ponds located on the golf course near the project site, they are too small to pose as a threat from a seiche. Similarly, Laguna Niguel Lake is located too far from the project site to pose a threat from a seiche. Therefore, no impacts related to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow would occur.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Less Than LAND USE AND PLANNING: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Physically divide an established community?     b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,     local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

33 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

Less Than LAND USE AND PLANNING: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or     natural community conservation plan? a) Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of PW and RW pipelines, which would be below ground upon completion. Construction would not result in physical barriers or road closures that would physically divide or prohibit access to the surrounding community. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

No Impact. The proposed project’s alignment would occur within an urbanized area, and no changes to existing land uses would be required. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and no impact would occur. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

No Impact. See Item IV.f. Although portions of the project site fall within the NCCP/HCP and HCP subregions, MNWD is not a Participating Entity of the NCCP/HCP and is not a Participating Landowner of the HCP. Therefore, project activities are not covered under either plan. Although the project does not have any permit obligations, the project would need to ensure activities are not in conflict with either conservation plan. The study area is not located within any reserves identified by either plan and therefore would not conflict with the conservation goals of the plans. No impacts would occur.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

Less Than MINERAL RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the     residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local     general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

34 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

No Impact. The proposed project would be constructed beneath an existing freeway and adjacent to other developed areas, which are not available for mineral resource extraction. The project site is not currently used for mineral resource extraction, nor is it located in an area with the known potential for mineral resources. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

No Impact. The proposed project would be constructed beneath an existing freeway and adjacent to other developed areas. The project site is not currently used for mineral resource extraction, nor is it located in an area with the known potential for locally important mineral resources. Additionally, the site is not designated in the City General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur.

XII. NOISE

Less Than NOISE: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local     general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive     groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing     without the project? d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels     existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project     expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the     project area to excessive noise levels?

35 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less Than Significant Impact.

Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise

Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Sound intensity or acoustic energy is measured in dBs that are A weighted (indicated by dBA) to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear.

Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. Typically, a doubling of sound volume will increase a noise level by 3 dBA. A 3 dBA change in sound is the level where humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound and a 5 dBA change is generally readily perceptible. The predominant rating scale for analyzing construction noise is the equivalent sound level (LEQ), which is based on dBA. The LEQ represents the sound pressure level equivalent to the total sound energy over a given period of time.

Sensitive Noise Receptors

Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise. NSLUs in the project vicinity include residences, the closest of which are located approximately 700 feet east of the project site.

Existing Noise Environment

The dominant noise source in the vicinity of the project alignment is traffic noise from I-5.

Regulatory Framework

Chapter 9.22 of the City of Mission Viejo Municipal Code establishes noise standards to control unnecessary and excessive sounds that may be detrimental to health, welfare, safety, and contrary to public interest. The Noise Ordinance sets limits pertaining to the generation of exterior noise. Residential exterior noise standards are 55 dB(A) between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and 50 dB(A) between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The nonresidential exterior noise standard is 65 dB(A) at any time.

Section 9.22.035 of the Noise Ordinance discusses exemptions to the noise standards. Noise sources associated with construction and repair activities are not subject to the above-discussed noise standards provided activities do not take place between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.

Construction

Construction noise impacts were estimated using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), a model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Construction would utilize a method of trenchless installation, called microtunneling, that uses a steerable, unmanned, microtunnel boring machine (MTBM). A backhoe, front loader, and dump truck would operate simultaneously and would

36 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

generate the highest noise levels during construction. A backhoe, front loader, and dump truck operating simultaneously for 40 percent of an 8-hour construction day would generate a 55.7 dBA LEQ noise contour of 700 feet.

As described above, noise sources associated with construction and repair activities in the City are not subject to City noise standards provided activities do not take place between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Project construction would be performed doing the allowable hours. Therefore, based on this exemption under the City Noise Ordinance, impacts from project-generated noise would be less than significant.

Operation

Pipeline facilities, once installed, are passive and would not generate a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, no operational noise impacts would occur. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less Than Significant Impact. Ground-borne vibration is a concern for projects that require heavy construction activity such as blasting, pile-driving, and operating heavy earth-moving equipment. Ground-borne vibration can result in a range of impacts, from minor annoyances to people to major shaking that damages buildings. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made sources attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment.

Construction vibration for the project may be caused by the use of a MTBM for tunnel boring Construction vibration would result in a potentially significant impact if it exceeds the “severe” criterion of 0.4 peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/s), as specified by Caltrans (2013). Caltrans provides a vibration level of 0.089 PPV in/s at 25 feet for a caisson drill. It is assumed that a MTBM would produce a similar PPV to a caisson drill. Therefore, caisson drill vibration levels are used as a proxy for MTBM levels.

The closest NSLU to the operation of a backhoe would be condominium residences, located approximately 700 feet from the project site. As a caisson drill is expected to generate a maximum vibration level of 0.089 PPV in/s at 25 feet, it would not generate levels above the “severe” criterion for the residential structures at 700 feet away. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

No Impact. Project-related noise generation would be limited to short-term construction activities. Pipeline facilities, once installed, are passive and would not generate a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, no impact would occur.

37 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Less Than Significant Impact. See Item XII.a. Construction of the proposed project would create elevated short-term construction noise that would potentially affect nearby residences. However, as discussed in Item XII.a., construction is exempt from the City Noise Ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The nearest public airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately 13 miles northwest of the project site. Due to this distance, temporary construction workers would not be exposed to excessive aircraft-related noise. No impact would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest private airstrip, Mission Hospital Heliport, is located approximately one mile southeast of the project site. As below ground pipelines, there would be no structures to expose residing people to excessive aircraft-related noise levels. During construction of the pipeline, workers may be exposed to noise from helicopters coming to and from Mission Hospital. However, the overall volume of flights associated with Mission Hospital are not substantial, and noise levels are single events with limited and short duration. Additionally, the presence of construction workers on site would be temporary. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Less Than POPULATION AND HOUSING: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and     businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing     elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the     construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

38 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

No Impact. As a PW and RW pipeline project, no houses or businesses are proposed, and the project would not directly induce population growth. The proposed project would replace existing pipelines serving an existing population, and would not indirectly cause substantial population growth from the extension of infrastructure. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The water pipelines would be constructed under an existing freeway and would have no impact associated with displacing existing housing or necessitating the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The proposed pipeline would provide water to the existing population in the area and would have no impact associated with displacing people or necessitating the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Less Than PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection?     b) Police protection?     c) Schools?     d) Parks?     e) Other public facilities?     a) Fire protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. The construction and operation of below ground pipelines would not generate a demand for increased fire protection services. During construction, fire protection may be required in the case of accident conditions, but these would be short-term demands and would not

39 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

require increases in the level of service offered or affect these agencies’ response times. Because of the low probability and short-term nature of potential fire protection needs during construction, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. b) Police protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in the construction of uses that would typically require police protection services, and therefore, would not have operational impacts to police protection or cause a need for new or altered police protection facilities. A police protection need could occur during project construction if theft or crime associated with the construction equipment or construction site would occur; however, these types of events would not trigger an increase above already provided police protection levels. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts. c) Schools?

No Impact. The proposed project would place no demand on school services because it would not involve the construction of facilities that would generate school-aged children, and would not involve the introduction of a temporary or permanent population into this area. Therefore, the project would have no impact on schools. d) Parks?

No Impact. The proposed project would place no demand on parks because it would not involve the introduction of a temporary or permanent population into the area that would use parks. Therefore, the project would have no impact on parks. e) Other public facilities?

No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the introduction of a temporary or permanent human population into this area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any long-term impacts to other public facilities.

XV. RECREATION

Less Than RECREATION: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial     physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities     which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

40 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

No Impact. The proposed project would not generate any residents who would require parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur to such facilities. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

No Impact. The proposed project neither includes recreational facilities nor requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

Less Than TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized     travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards     established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results     in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or     incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?     f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise     decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including

41 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not include components that would result in operational traffic generation, except for occasional routine maintenance trips. While construction activities would likely generate a small number of trips associated with construction equipment and worker vehicles, these trips would be limited to the construction period, and would not be considered substantial in relation to the existing traffic load in the project vicinity. The pipelines would be installed under I-5 and the surrounding area, and would not limit accessibility to the freeway or roadways in the project vicinity. There are no bicycle paths in the project area. The Inland Empire – Orange County and Orange County Metrolink lines run immediately to the west of the project alignment, but would not be affected by project construction or operation. A small section of a pedestrian/golf cart pathway associated with the golf course within the eastern portion of the project alignment may be temporarily inaccessible during construction. The inaccessibility would be temporary and would not impact a substantial number of people. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including alternative modes of transportation, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion of Item XVI.a, above. The proposed project would not generate a substantial number of vehicle trips and would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The project would not include any aviation components or structures where height would be an aviation concern. Therefore, no impact to traffic patterns would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less Than Significant Impact. Some construction activity would occur on the golf course to the east of I-5. The work areas, however, would be clearly demarcated and closed to public access. Therefore, the impacts from hazards associated with the work areas would be temporary and less than significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact. Traffic patterns would not be affected during project construction or operation, as access to roadways in the project area would be maintained. Emergency access to the area would not be limited. Therefore, no impact would occur.

42 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Item XVI.a., there would be no impacts associated with bicycle facilities. Project construction activities may result in the closure of a portion of the pedestrian/golf cart pathway associated with the golf course that is within the eastern portion of the project alignment. However, impacts to the path would be temporary and therefore less than significant.

XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Less Than TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical     resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section     5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?

43 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

Less than Significant with Mitigation. Tribal cultural resources (TCRs) are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, or determined to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. As discussed in Item V.b, the project would occur within an area sensitive for cultural resources, including for resources of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, and therefore the potential exists for encountering TCRs during ground disturbing activities of project construction. As a result, project construction would be required to implement mitigation measure CUL- 1 to reduce potentially significant impacts to TCRs to less than significant.

XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Less Than UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the     applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing     facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the     construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are     new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has     adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to     accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and     regulations related to solid waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

No Impact. The project would not involve the construction of facilities that would generate sewage, and the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of wastewater facilities or exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, no impact would occur.

44 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. The proposed project would replace existing PW and RW pipelines. It would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. The proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

No Impact. The project proposes the replacement and upsizing of existing PW and RW pipelines, due to the existing pipelines reaching the end of their useful lives and because there is need within MNWD’s PW system and SMWD’s RW system to convey additional water. This additional water is covered under existing resources for the water districts and would not require new or expanded entitlements. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

No Impact. The proposed project would not create wastewater and would therefore not require increased wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, no impact would occur. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste generation during pipeline construction would be short-term and minimal. Construction debris (e.g., asphalt, concrete) would be recycled, as feasible. Excess soil would be hauled from the site, and would be disposed of at locations approved for such use. Operation of the pipelines would not generate solid waste or affect landfill capacities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact. The proposed project would comply with all applicable, federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impact would occur.

45 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Less Than MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant No Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant     or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when     viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or     indirectly? a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project may result in potentially significant impacts to special-status animal species, which would be mitigated to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, as identified in Section IV. The project may also result in potentially significant impacts to unknown archaeological and tribal resources. However, potential degradation of the quality of the environment would be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1, as identified in Section V. b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Less Than Significant Impact. As documented in this Initial Study, the project is not expected to result in significant cumulative impacts. Other future projects within the surrounding area would be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations to reduce potential impacts to less than significant, or to the extent possible. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to contribute to cumulatively considerable environmental impacts.

46 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

c) Have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant Impact. As documented in this Initial Study, the project is not expected to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Construction-related aesthetics, air quality, hazardous materials, and noise impacts would be temporary and minimal. Operation of the below ground pipelines would not result in substantial adverse effects to humans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

47 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

3.0 REFERENCES

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008, January. Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Available from http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA- White-Paper.pdf

California Department of Conservation (CDC) Division of Land Resources Protection. 2016. Orange County Important Farmland 2014 map. Available from: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/ora14.pdf.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area map. Available from: http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/orange/fhszs_map.30.jpg.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2017. Envirostar. Available from: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2017. Scenic Highway System Lists. Available from: http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/index.html.

California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2015. Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and Seismic Hazard Zone Map. Available from: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Accessed August 25. Available from: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2015. GeoTracker. Available from: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map Orange County, California Panel 433 of 539. Available from: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=mission%20viejo#searchresultsanchor.

Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) 2018a. Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek, Biological Technical Report. January.

2018b. Cultural Resources Study for the Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek. January.

Mission Viejo, City of. 2009. City of Mission Viejo General Plan. Available from: http://cityofmissionviejo.org/departments/community-development/planning/general-plan.

National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey. Available from: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

48 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final- 2016-aqmp.

2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. October.

49 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

50 Appendix A Biological Technical Report Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

Biological Technical Report

February 28, 2018 | GHD-04

Submitted to:

Moulton Niguel Water District 26161 Gordon Road Laguna Hills, CA 92653

Prepared for: Lauren Singleton Biologist GHD 175 Technology Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618

Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 16485 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

Biological Technical Report

Submitted to:

Moulton Niguel Water District 26161 Gordon Road Laguna Hills, CA 92653

Prepared for:

GHD 175 Technology Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618

Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 16485 Laguna Canyon Road Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618

February 28, 2018 | GHD-04

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Report ...... 1 1.2 Study Area Location ...... 1 1.3 Project Description ...... 1 2.0 METHODS ...... 2 2.1 Nomenclature ...... 2 2.2 Literature Review ...... 2 2.3 Field Surveys ...... 3 2.3.1 General Biological Survey ...... 3 2.3.2 Jurisdictional Assessment ...... 3 3.0 RESULTS ...... 5 3.1 Environmental Setting ...... 5 3.2 Vegetation Communities ...... 5 3.2.1 Fresh Water Marsh ...... 6 3.2.2 Southern Willow Scrub ...... 6 3.2.3 Non-native Vegetation ...... 7 3.2.4 Disturbed ...... 7 3.2.5 Disturbed/Ornamental ...... 7 3.2.6 Ornamental ...... 8 3.2.7 Park ...... 8 3.2.8 Open Water ...... 8 3.2.9 Developed ...... 8 3.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands ...... 8 3.3.1 Oso Creek ...... 9 3.3.2 La Paz Creek ...... 9 3.4 Plants ...... 10 3.5 Animals ...... 10 3.6 Habitat and Wildlife Corridor Evaluation ...... 10 3.7 Sensitive Biological Resources ...... 12 3.7.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats ...... 12 3.7.2 Rare Plant Species ...... 12 3.7.3 Sensitive Animal Species ...... 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

4.0 REGIONAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT ...... 13 4.1 Federal Regulations ...... 13 4.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ...... 13 4.1.2 Federal Clean Water Act ...... 14 4.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...... 14 4.1.4 Critical Habitat ...... 14 4.2 State Regulations ...... 14 4.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 14 4.2.2 California Endangered Species Act ...... 15 4.2.3 California Fish and Game Code ...... 15 4.3 Local Regulations ...... 15 4.3.1 Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP and Orange County Southern Subregion HCP...... 15 5.0 PROJECT EFFECTS ...... 16 5.1 Sensitive Species ...... 17 5.1.1 Rare Plant Species ...... 17 5.1.2 Sensitive Animal Species ...... 17 5.2 Sensitive Vegetation Communities ...... 19 5.2.1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats ...... 19 5.2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Riparian Habitat and Streambed .... 20 5.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction ...... 20 5.4 Wildlife Movement and Migratory Species ...... 21 5.4.1 Wildlife Movement ...... 21 5.4.2 Migratory Species ...... 21 5.5 Local Policies and Ordinances ...... 22 5.6 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans ...... 22 6.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES ...... 22 7.0 CERTIFICATION/QUALIFICATION ...... 27 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 28

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Plant Species Observed B Animal Species Observed or Detected C Representative Site Photographs D Representative Drainage Photographs E Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur F Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Follows Page

1 Regional Location ...... 2 2 USGS Topography ...... 2 3 Aerial Vicinity ...... 2 4 Proposed Project ...... 2 5 Vegetation and Land Uses ...... 6 6 Jurisdictional Features ...... 8 7 Temporary Disturbances to Vegetation and Land Uses ...... 20

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page

1 Vegetation Communities and Land Uses ...... 6 2 Jurisdictional Features ...... 10 3 Temporary Disturbances to Vegetation and Land Uses ...... 20

iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AMSL Above Mean Sea Level

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFG California Fish and Game CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CSS Coastal Sage Scrub CWA Clean Water Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FESA Federal Endangered Species Act

HCP Orange County Southern Subregion Habitat Conservation Plan HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

I Interstate

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCV A Manual of California Vegetation MNWD Moulton Niguel Water District MTBM Microtunnel Boring Machine

NCCP/HCP Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan NPPA Native Plant Protection Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OCHCS Orange County Habitat Classification System

Project Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek PW Potable Water

RJMC R. J. Meade Consulting, Inc. RPW Relatively Permanent Water Body RW Recycled Water RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SMWD Santa Margarita Water District SSC Species of Special Concern

TNW Traditional Navigable Waters

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WUS Waters of the U.S.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

vi Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) completed this biological resources technical report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements Project at I-5 and Oso Creek (project), which is proposed in City of Mission Viejo, Orange County, California. The Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) is proposing replacement of existing potable water (PW) and recycled water (RW) pipelines using trenchless installation methods. The PW and RW pipelines transport water to and from existing pump stations located on the west side of Interstate (I-) 5. The project would occur within a 7.01-acre study area, which is generally located at the I-5 approximately 0.30 mile to the south of Oso Parkway and one mile north of Crown Valley Parkway in the City of Mission Viejo.

The purpose of this report is to document the existing biological conditions within the study area and provide an analysis of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources with respect to local, state, and federal policy. This report provides the biological resources technical documentation necessary for review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by MNWD (CEQA lead agency).

The center of the study area includes a portion of I-5 while the eastern portion is primarily located within the limits of the golf course located on the Mission Viejo Country Club property (golf course) and the western portion is located within MNWD’s Wastewater Plant 3A (treatment plant). The majority of vegetation within the eastern portion of the study area is composed of ornamental landscaping associated with the golf course. The western portion is dominated by development associated with the existing treatment plant facilities. The study area supports two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) blueline streams, including Oso Creek and La Paz Creek. Vegetation associated with the two drainage features include southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh habitats. Immediate surrounding land uses include Mission Viejo Country Club to the east; open space, a transmission tower, I-5, and Mission Viejo Country Club to the south; a Metrolink railroad track and Wastewater Plant 3A to the west; and Wastewater Plant 3A, I-5, and Mission Viejo Golf Couse to the north. Although the study area falls within the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) and Orange County Southern Subregion Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), MNWD is not a Participating Entity of the NCCP/HCP and is not a Participating Landowner of the HCP.

HELIX conducted a general biological survey and a jurisdictional assessment in October 2017. The surveys confirmed the presence of nine vegetation communities/land uses, including fresh water marsh, southern willow scrub, disturbed, disturbed/ornamental, non-native vegetation, ornamental, park, open water, and developed. Southern willow scrub is considered a sensitive community pursuant to CDFW. No rare plant species or sensitive animal species were incidentally observed during the survey. A total of four rare plant species have a potential to occur on the study area. A total of 13 sensitive wildlife species have a low potential, three have a moderate potential, and one has a high potential to occur on the study area.

Temporary disturbance is proposed to 1.46 acres, including 0.46 acre of disturbed areas, 0.16 acre of non-native vegetation, 0.05 acre of ornamental, 0.62 acre of park, and 0.17 acre of developed areas. No direct impacts are proposed to suitable habitat for rare plant species or sensitive wildlife species. If present and construction activities occur within the nesting season, indirect impacts may occur to least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and/or other nesting birds. If present and construction activities occur within the maternity roosting for bats, indirect impacts may occur to pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and/or western red bat (Lasiurus

ES-1 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018 blossevillii). Additionally, proposed temporary disturbance is located adjacent to suitable habitat for southern western pond turtle (Actinemys pallida) and two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii). Avoidance and minimization measures are proposed that would reduce potential significant impacts of the project to below a level of significance. No permanent or temporary impacts are proposed to jurisdictional streambeds or sensitive plant communities. The proposed project would not impact wildlife corridors or conflict with regional conservation plans.

ES-2 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

This report provides the Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD; California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] lead agency), resource agencies, and the public with current biological data to satisfy review of the proposed Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek Project (project) located in the City of Mission Viejo, Orange County, California. The purpose of this report is to document the existing biological conditions on and in the immediate vicinity of the project, and provide an analysis of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources with respect to local, state, and federal policy. This report provides the biological resources technical documentation necessary for project review under CEQA by the lead agency.

1.2 STUDY AREA LOCATION

The approximately 7.01-acre study area is located is generally located at Interstate (I-) 5, approximately 0.30 mile to the south of Oso Parkway and one mile north of Crown Valley Parkway in the City of Mission Viejo (Figure 1, Regional Location). The study area is located within Section 12 of Township 7 South, Range 8 West of the of the San Juan Capistrano, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, USGS Topography). The study area straddles the I-5, with Mission Viejo Country Club in the eastern portions and MNWD’s Wastewater Plant 3A in western portions (Figure 3, Aerial Vicinity).

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) is proposing replacement of existing potable water (PW) and recycled water (RW) pipelines using trenchless microtunneling installation methods. Microtunneling is a method of trenchless installation that uses a steerable, unmanned microtunnel boring machine (MTBM) launched from a launching shaft toward a pre-excavated receiving shaft. As the MTBM excavates the tunnel, jacking pipes are simultaneously jacked behind the MTBM. Jacks are located in the launching shaft. This process enables immediate and continuous support of the tunnel, with excavation and lining occurring simultaneously in a single operation.

The PW and RW pipelines transport water to and from existing pump stations located on the west side of the Interstate (I-) 5 freeway. The 14-inch existing PW pipeline has recently experienced several failures beneath the limits of Oso Creek, which required emergency repairs. The RW pipelines consists of 8-inch and 12-inch PVC pipelines that are joint-trenched with an existing Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD) 20-inch pipeline. The existing RW pipelines are approaching the end of their service life and are currently undersized to handle the additional recycled water that SMWD would like to move through the RW pipeline. In addition, the California Department of Transportation is currently in the final design phase of a project to widen the I-5 freeway within the study area. The expansion of the freeway would conflict with portions of MNWD’s existing infrastructure, including the existing PW and RW pipelines. This conflict increases the urgency of replacing the existing pipelines with new pipelines.

As previously mentioned, the PW and RW pipelines would be installed beneath Oso Creek and I-5 using microtunneling. The new PW pipeline would be a 21-inch diameter pipeline and the new RW pipeline would be a 30-inch diameter pipeline. Both the 21-inch PW pipeline and 30-inch RW pipeline would be

1 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018 encased in a 72-inch diameter steel casing. For this project, the microtunneling will be a two-pass method with the first pass being the installation of the steel casing. The second pass is the installation of the PW and RW pipes. The PW launching shaft is located to the west of the I-5 while the RW launching shaft is located to the east of the I-5 and to the south of Oso Creek. Both pipelines will share a single receiving shaft located to the east of the I-5 and to the north of Oso Creek. The newly installed PW and RW pipelines would be reconnected to existing pipelines and the old PW and RW pipelines would be abandoned in place. Nine potholes will be dug within the study area, which will allow examination of subsurface infrastructure.

Since the PW and RW pipelines will be installed using microtunneling, only temporary disturbance is proposed; the project will not require any permanent impacts. Temporary disturbance will occur within two proposed work areas located within the study area. One work area is located to the west of the I-5 and the other work area is located to the east of the I-5. All project activities will occur within the two proposed work areas, which includes two launching shafts, one receiving shaft, and nine potholes. In addition, all other construction-related activities, such as equipment staging and vehicle movement, will occur within the work areas. The PW and RW pipelines, launching shafts, receiving shaft, potholes, and proposed work areas are shown on Figure 4, Proposed Project.

2.0 METHODS

Project evaluation included a review of project plans, a literature review of biological resources occurring on the study area and surrounding vicinity, a general biological survey, vegetation mapping, habitat assessment, spring and summer rare plant surveys, and a burrowing owl habitat assessment and focused surveys. The methods used to evaluate the biological resources present on the study area are discussed in this section.

2.1 NOMENCLATURE

Nomenclature for this report follows Baldwin et al. (2012) for plants and the Orange County Habitat Classification System (OCHCS; Gray and Bramlet 1992) for vegetation community classifications, with additional vegetation community information taken from Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV; Sawyer et al. 2009). Animal nomenclature follows Emmel and Emmel (1973) for butterflies, Center for North American Herpetology (Taggart 2016) for reptiles and amphibians, American Ornithologists’ Union (2017) for birds, and Baker et al. (2003) for mammals. Rare plant and sensitive animal statuses are from the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] 2017) and the California Natural Diversity Database (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] 2017). Rare plant species’ habitats and flowering periods are from the Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012), the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2017), and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2017). Soil classifications were obtained from the Web Soil Survey (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2017a).

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Prior to conducting the site visit, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) reviewed regional planning documents, Google Earth aerials (2017), Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2017a), and sensitive species database

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

! !

%&g( ! !

! AZUZA ?ø

! !

%&e( ! !

%&o(! ?¥

SAN Puddingstone

! ! ! ONTARIO

! GABRIEL Reservoir

! !

! !"`$

! !

! !"`$ !

! !

! POMONA !

WEST ! !

! !

! COVINA !

! SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ?z !

! ?z ! ! ?¬ !

! ! !

! !

! CHINO !

! !

! !"^$ ! !

WHITTIER !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! LOS ANGELES COUNTY !"a$

DOWNEY ! !

! !

! RIVERSIDE !

! LA !

! !

HABRA !

! !

%&q( !

! ! ?u !

! NORWALK BUENA

! ?Æ

! !

! PARK ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ?Æ

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

! ! ! !

! !

! ORANGE COUNTY ! ! !

%&o( ?Æ !

! !

! ! CORONA

! !

! ANAHEIM !

! ! !

! ! ! ! Lake

%&l( ! ! !

! !

! Mathews !

! !

! Irvine !

! ! ! Lake ! WESTMINSTER

LONG !

! !"a$ !

BEACH !

! !

?ì !

! Santa Ana Mountains

! ! SANTA

! !

! ANA

! !

! AÝ

%&l( !

! ?s

! !

! ! !

! ! !"^$ !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

AÎ !

! !

! ! !

! !

HUNTINGTON !

! !

%&l( !

BEACH IRVINE ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! NEWPORT !

! !

BEACH ?° !

! !

! MISSION ! !

! !

! VIEJO

! !

! ! !

! !

! Study Area

! !

! ?±

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

LAGUNA!

! ! !

BEACH ! !

Pacific ! RIVERSIDE COUNTY

! !

! SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Ocean ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

SAN !

! !

CLEMENTE !

! !

!"^$ !

CAMP !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! PENDELETON

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig1_Regional.mxdGHD-04 1/9/2018 -EC !

! !

Source:! Base Map Layers (Esri, 2013)

Miles !

0 6 !

! !

K !

! !

Regional Location!

! ! ! Figure 1 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

Potable Water and Recycled Water Study Area H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig2_USGS.mxdGHD-04 1/9/2018 -EC Source: San Juan Capistrano 7.5' Quad (USGS) 0 2,000 Feet K

USGS Topography Figure 2 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

Oso Parkway

Mission Viejo Country Club

Moulton Marguerite Parkway Ranch Park

Cabot Road

Potable Water and Recycled Water Study Area ¦¨§5

Camino Capistrano

Crown Valley Parkway H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig3_Aerial.mxdGHD-04 1/9/2018 -EC Source: Aerial (NAIP, 2015) 0 1,000 Feet K

Aerial Vicinity Figure 3 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek Study Area Project Components Pot Holes Launching Shaft Receiving Shaft Proposed Work Area Steel Casing Potable Water Line Mission Viejo Recycled Water Line Country Club

¦¨§5

Cabot Road

Camino Capistrano H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig4_Proposed_Proj.mxdGHD-04 2/27/2018 -EC Source: Aerial (NAIP, 2015) 0 100 Feet K

Proposed Project Figure 4 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018 records, including the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2017), CNDDB (CDFW 2017), and critical habitat maps for endangered and threatened species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2017a). A seven-quadrangle database search was conducted on CNDDB and CNPS, which included the following quadrangles: Laguna Beach, Tustin, El Toro, Santiago Peak, Canada Gobernadora, San Clemente, and Dana Point. In addition, the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP; R. J. Meade Consulting, Inc. [RJMC] 1996) and the Orange County Southern Subregion Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP; County of Orange 2006) was consulted to ensure the project is not in conflict with the NCCP/HCP or HCP.

2.3 FIELD SURVEYS

Field surveys were conducted to document the existing condition of the study area and surrounding lands. A general biological survey and habitat assessment were conducted on the study area to map existing vegetation communities and to determine habitat suitability for sensitive plant and animal species. A list of plant and animal species observed and/or detected during the field surveys are provided as Appendix A, Plant Species Observed and Appendix B, Animal Species Observed and/or Detected. Noted animal species were identified by direct observation, vocalizations, or the observance of scat, tracks, or other signs. However, the list of animal species identified is not necessarily a comprehensive account of all species that use the study area, as species that are nocturnal, secretive, or seasonally restricted may not have been observed. A jurisdictional assessment was also conducted to determine the existing jurisdictional limits regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW.

General Biological Survey

HELIX Biologist and Regulatory Specialist Ezekiel Cooley and Biologist Lauren Singleton conducted a general biological survey of the study area on October 29, 2017. Vegetation communities were classified and mapped in accordance with the OCHCS (Gray and Bramlet 1992), with additional information from the MCV (Sawyer et al. 2009). Vegetation was mapped on a 100-foot (1 inch = 100 feet) aerial photograph of the site. Vegetation communities were mapped by HELIX to one-hundredth of an acre (0.10 acre). The entire site was surveyed on foot with the aid of binoculars. Representative photographs of the site were taken, with select photographs included in this report as Appendix C, Representative Site Photographs. Plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected were recorded in field notebooks. Animal identifications were made in the field by direct, visual observation or indirectly by detection of calls, burrows, tracks, or scat. Plant identifications were made in the field or in the lab through comparison with voucher specimens or photographs.

Jurisdictional Assessment

Prior to beginning fieldwork, aerial photographs (1 inch = 100 feet), topographic maps (1 inch = 100 feet), USGS quadrangle maps, and National Wetland Inventory maps (USFWS 2017b) were reviewed to assist in determining the location of potential jurisdictional waters on the study area. Mr. Cooley and Ms. Singleton conducted the jurisdictional assessment field work on October 30, 2017. The assessment was conducted to identify and jurisdictional waters potentially subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, and streambed habitats potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game (CFG) Code. Data collection was targeted in areas that were deemed to have the potential to support jurisdictional resources, such as the presence of an ordinary high water mark

3 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

(OHWM), the presence of a bed/bank and streambed associated vegetation and/or other surface indications of streambed hydrology. Representative photographs were taken of the drainage features and are included as Appendix D, Representative Drainage Photographs.

2.3.2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction

The USACE waters of the U.S. (WUS) were determined using current USACE guidelines (Environmental Laboratory 1987, USACE 2008a). Areas were determined to be WUS if there was evidence of regular surface flow (e.g., bed and bank). Jurisdictional limits for these areas were measured according to the presence of a discernible OHWM, which is defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 329.11 as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The USACE has issued further guidance on the OHWM (Riley 2005; USACE 2008b), which also was considered in this jurisdictional assessment. Although potential wetlands were observed within the Oso Creek and La Paz Creek during the jurisdictional assessment, a formal wetland assessment using the three criteria (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) established for wetland delineations (Environmental Laboratory 1987, USACE 2008a) was not warranted since the pipelines will be installed outside of all jurisdictional limits.

The jurisdictional delineation was conducted in accordance with court decisions (i.e., Rapanos v. United States, Carabell v. United States, and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. USACE), as outlined and applied by the USACE (USACE 2007; Grumbles and Woodley 2007); and USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; 2007). These publications explain that the EPA and USACE will assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters (TNW) and tributaries to TNWs that are a relatively permanent water body (RPW), which has year-round or continuous seasonal flow. For water bodies that are not RPWs, a significant nexus evaluation is used to determine if the non-RPW is jurisdictional. As an alternative to the significant nexus evaluation process, a preliminary jurisdictional delineation may be submitted to the USACE. The preliminary jurisdictional delineation treats all waters and wetlands on a site as if they are jurisdictional WUS (USACE 2008a). A significant nexus evaluation or preliminary jurisdictional delineation are typically only required for projects that propose impacts to potentially jurisdictional features and, therefore, require a Section 404 permit from the USACE.

The RWQCB asserts regulatory jurisdiction over activities affecting wetland and non-wetland waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Potential RWQCB jurisdiction found within the study area follows the boundaries of potential USACE jurisdiction for WUS. There are no areas supporting isolated waters of the State subject to exclusive RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

2.3.2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction

The CDFW jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of riparian vegetation or regular surface flow, if present. Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses with surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation” (Title 14, Section 1.72). This definition for CDFW jurisdictional habitat allows for a wide variety of habitat types to be jurisdictional, including some

4 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018 that do not include wetland species (e.g., oak woodland and alluvial fan sage scrub). Jurisdictional limits for CDFW streambeds were defined by the top of bank. Vegetated CDFW habitats were mapped at the limits of streambed-associated vegetation, if present.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The center of the study area includes a portion of I-5 while the eastern portion is primarily located within the limits of the golf course located on the Mission Viejo Country Club property (golf course) and the western portion is located within MNWD’s Wastewater Plant 3A (treatment plant). The majority of vegetation within the eastern portion of the study area is made up of ornamental landscaping associated with the golf course. The western portion is dominated by development associated with the existing treatment plant facilities. The study area supports two USGS blueline streams, including Oso Creek and La Paz Creek. Vegetation associated with the two drainage features include southern willow scrub and freshwater marsh habitats. Soils within the study area are predominantly mapped as Riverwash, which is made up of sandy and gravelly alluvium deposited by rivers and streams (NRCS 2017). Two other soil types are mapped on the study area, including Bosanko clay and Corralitos loamy sand (NRCS 2017). Bosanko soil series is a well-drained soil that is associated with hilly uplands. The Corralitos soil series is somewhat excessively drained soils associated with alluvial fans and small valleys. The majority of the mapped Bansko and Corralitos soil occurs within the limits of the golf course and the I-5.

The topography of the eastern portion of the study area supports gently rolling terrain created for the golf course. There is a portion of the eastern study area that supports moderately steep cross slopes that drain runoff from the I-5 and the golf course. The western portion of the study area is mostly flat since it supports existing development. Similar to the eastern portion, the western portion of the study area supports a cross slope that drains runoff from the I-5. Portions of Oso Creek and La Paz Creek that occur within the study area are incised and support steeper terrain. Elevations on the study area range from approximately 294 feet (90 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) near the center of the southern study area boundary and 331 feet (101 meters) AMSL near the southeastern portion. Immediate surrounding land uses include Mission Viejo Country Club to the east; open space, a transmission tower, I-5, and Mission Viejo Country Club to the south; a Metrolink railroad track and Wastewater Plant 3A to the west; and Wastewater Plant 3A, I-5, and Mission Viejo Golf Couse to the north.

3.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

A total of nine vegetation communities or land uses were mapped on the study area, including fresh water marsh, southern willow scrub, disturbed, disturbed/ornamental, non-native vegetation, ornamental, park, open water, and developed (Table 1, Vegetation Communities and Land Uses; Figure 5, Vegetation and Land Uses). The OCHCS Habitat Classification Numbers are provided in parentheses next to each community name in Table 1. A brief description of each vegetation community and land uses mapped on the study area is provided below.

5 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

Table 1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND USES

Habitat Type (OCHCS)1 Habitat Type (MCV)2 Acres Fresh Water Marsh (6.4) Cattail Marshes 0.19 Southern Willow Scrub (7.2) Red Willow Thicket3 1.26 Disturbed (16.0) Disturbed 0.56 Disturbed (16.0)/Ornamental (15.5) Disturbed/Ornamental 0.05 Non-native Vegetation (16.2) Non-native Vegetation 0.19 Ornamental (15.5) Ornamental 0.78 Park (15.5) Park 1.79 Open Water (12.1) Open Water 0.10 Developed (15.6) Developed 2.09 TOTAL 7.01 1 Orange County Habitat Classification System (OCHCS) 2 Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) 3 Sensitive habitats pursuant to CDFW’s Natural Communities List (2010).

Fresh Water Marsh

Fresh water marsh is dominated by perennial, emergent monocots ranging between 5 to 13 feet tall that form incomplete to completely closed canopies. This vegetation type occurs along the coast and in coastal valleys near river mouths and around the margins of lakes and springs. These areas are semi- or permanently flooded (Holland 1986). Dominant species include cattails (Typha spp.) and bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.), along with umbrella sedges (Cyperus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and spike-sedges (Eleocharis spp.). Fresh water marshes are relatively scarce and remaining acreage provides important habitat for migrant birds as well as performing many other functions, such as floodwater conveyance and water quality enhancement.

The study area supports two small patches of mixed fresh water marsh, which totaled 0.19 acre. One patch was mapped within La Paz Creek in the western portion of the study area and one patch was mapped within Oso Creek in the eastern portion of the study area. The fresh water marsh was dominated by cattails. Other species observed within this community included native mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), willow weed (Persicaria lapathifolia) and non-native castor bean (Ricinus communis) and Spanish false fleabane (Pulicaria paludosa).

Southern Willow Scrub

Southern willow scrub consists of dense, broad-leaved, winter-deciduous stands of trees dominated by shrubby willows (Salix sp.) in association with mule fat and scattered Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii) and western sycamores (Platanus racemosa). This vegetation community occurs on loose, sandy or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows. Frequent flooding maintains this early seral community, preventing succession to a riparian woodland or forest.

Southern willow scrub was the dominant community observed within La Pa Creek and Oso Creek on the study area, which totaled 1.26 acres. Red willow (Salix laevigata) and black willow (Salix gooddingii) were the most frequently observed species, although arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) was also observed. In addition to willows, a few western sycamores (Platanus racemosa) contributed to the canopy layer of this community. The understory was made up of a mixture of scattered shrubs and herbaceous

Figure 5 Figure

Vegetation and Land Uses Land and Vegetation

0 Feet 75 Source: Aerial (NAIP, 2015) (NAIP, Aerial Source:

H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig5_VegPWRW.mxd GHD-04 2/15/2018 -EC 2/15/2018 GHD-04 H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig5_VegPWRW.mxd

¦ ¨ §

Camino Capistrano Camino

( ! 2

Country Club Country

Mission Viejo Mission

E 5

E 6

!( ( ! 4

( ! 1

support sensitive plant and/or wildlife species. wildlife and/or plant sensitive support

* Vegetation communities with potential to potential with communities Vegetation * E

3 Southern Willow Scrub* Willow Southern

! (

Park

Ornamental

Open Water Open

Non-native Vegetation Non-native

Fresh Water Marsh* Water Fresh

Disturbed/Ornamental

Disturbed

Developed

Vegetation and Land Uses Land and Vegetation

Site Photograph Locations Photograph Site

(

E !

Study Area Study Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek Oso and I-5 at Replacements Pipeline Recycled and Potable Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018 vegetation, including cattails, curly dock (Rumex crispus), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), giant reed (Arundo donax), Jimson weed (Datura wrightii), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), mule fat, stinging nettle (Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), white pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and willow weed.

Non-native Vegetation

Non-native vegetation is typically associated with land that has been heavily influenced by human activities, including areas adjacent to roads, manufactured slopes, and abandoned lots. Non-native vegetation areas are dominated by ornamental and exotic species that take advantage of previously cleared or abandoned landscaping or land showing signs of past or present animal usage that removes any capability of providing viable habitat.

Non-native vegetation was observed in two small patches in the western portion of the study area, just south of the treatment plant. The non-native vegetation community totaled 0.19 acre and dominated the slope of a small disturbed hillside. This community was dominated by short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) with few very other species observed, such as non-native castor bean, Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum). A few remnant native shrub species were also scattered throughout this community, including brittle bush (Encelia farinosa), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii).

Disturbed

Disturbed habitat includes land cleared of vegetation (e.g., dirt roads) or actively maintained or heavily disturbed areas that are mostly unvegetated, but may support scattered non-native plant species such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species that take advantage of disturbance. Disturbed habitat is similar to the non-native vegetation community described above, although disturbed areas generally supports little to no vegetative cover.

A disturbed area totaling 0.56 acre was observed in the western portion of the study area, just south of the treatment plant. The disturbed area consisted of loose gravel and was unvegetated.

Disturbed/Ornamental

As described above, disturbed habitat includes mostly unvegetated land (e.g., dirt roads, eroded hillsides) that has influenced by human activities. Ornamental vegetation is characterized as stands of naturalized trees and shrubs (e.g., acacias [Acacia spp.], peppertrees [Schinus spp.]), many of which are also used in landscaping. A disturbed/ornamental habitat is mostly unvegetated due to human disturbance, but supports some scattered ornamental vegetation.

A small patched of disturbed/ornamental habitat was mapped in the eastern portion of the study area, which totaled 0.05 acre. The disturbed/ornamental habitat area was primarily unvegetated due to disturbance from the adjacent I-5, but did support some scattered ornamental species such as Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle) and purple fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum).

7 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

Ornamental

As described above, ornamental vegetation is characterized as stands of naturalized trees and shrubs, many of which are also used in landscaping.

Ornamental vegetation was planted on the cross slopes in the eastern portion of the study area and adjacent to the treatment plant facilities in the western portion of the study area, which totaled 0.78 acre. Landscape species observed included acacia (Acacia sp.), Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), bougainvillea (Bougainvillea sp.), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), false sandalwood (Myoporum laetum), hottentot-fig (Carpobrotus edulis), jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), Mexican fan palm, Peruvian pepper tree, river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), and silver dollar gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos).

Park

Parks include open recreational areas that support landscape vegetation and/or turfgrass, such as greenbelts, golf courses, and city and county parks.

The majority of the eastern study area was mapped as park, which totals 1.79 acres. The park areas were highly disturbed from golfing activities and supported a low diversity of plant species. These areas are dominated by turfgrass, such as a Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) and Saint Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum). Few other species were observed but included weedy species adapted to disturbance, such as prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper) and white nightshade (Solanum americanum), and ornamental trees, such as false sandalwood and jacaranda.

Open Water

Open water includes perennial bodies of fresh water, such as lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams, that support less than 10 percent of vegetative cover.

Open water totaled 0.10 acre and was observed within the upstream portion of Oso Creek on the eastern side of the study area.

Developed

Developed land is where permanent structures and/or pavement have been placed, which prevents the growth of vegetation, or where landscaping is clearly tended and maintained.

Developed areas were observed in the center and western portions of the study area, which totaled 2.09 acre. Developed areas included the I-5, the treatment plant facilities, and a paved road (Camino Capistrano).

3.3 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS AND WETLANDS

Based on the results of the jurisdictional delineation, two major drainage features were observed on the study area (Oso Creek and La Paz Creek). The study area supports approximately 0.65 acre of USACE/RWQCB WUS and 2.25 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation (Figure 6,

8 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek Study Area (! DrainageE Photograph Locations USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction Potential Wetland* * Potential wetland features may be subject to regulation by the

USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW. E La Paz Creek 1(! Mission Viejo

Country Club

! 3 ( ! ( Oso Creek2 E

4 E ( ! 5 E ( ! 6 E Oso Creek

¦¨§5

Camino Capistrano H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig6_JD_PWRW.mxdGHD-04 2/15/2018 -EC Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2016) 0 75 Feet K

Jurisdictional Features Figure 6 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

Jurisdictional Features; Table 2, Jurisdictional Features). Oso Creek and La Paz Creek are described in detail below.

Although potential wetlands within Oso Creek and La Paz Creek were observed during the jurisdictional assessment, a formal wetland assessment using the three criteria (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) established for wetland delineations (Environmental Laboratory 1987, USACE 2008a) was not warranted since the pipelines will be installed outside of all jurisdictional limits. The potential wetlands are also shown on Figure 6.

Oso Creek

Oso Creek is a USGS mapped blueline stream with headwaters located in the foothills of the Sana Ana Mountains, approximately eight miles to the northeast of the study area. The majority of Oso Creek is channelized and surrounded by dense development. Two dams were built in the late 1960s to control flows within Oso Creek; these dams created Upper Oso Reservoir and Lake Mission Viejo (Historic Aerials 1970). Both reservoirs occur more than two miles upstream of the golf course. Oso Creek flows through the golf course as an earthen-bottomed channel and enters the study area at the northeastern boundary. The creek flows southwest through the study area for approximately 340 feet, where it passes under a golf cart bridge. The southeastern bank is armored with grouted rip rap and there are sediment mounds vegetated with hydrophytic species near the northwestern bank. This portion of Oso Creek supports freshwater marsh habitat along the banks and a patch of southern willow scrub just upstream of I-5. Mapped soils include Corralitos loamy sand and Riverwash.

Oso Creek continues to flow southwest under I-5 through a four-cell box culvert for approximately 240 feet. On the west side of the box culvert, La Paz Creek joins Oso Creek. This portion of Oso Creek is fairly incised and water ponds approximately 70 feet downstream of the culvert. From its confluence with La Paz Creek, Oso Creek flows for another 230 feet to the southwest where it exits the study area near the southwestern boundary. This portion of Oso Creek is dominated by southern willow scrub and mapped soils include Corralitos loamy sand and Riverwash. After exiting the study area, Oso Creek continues to flow south and becomes fully channelized 0.5 mile to the south of the study area. Oso Creek flows into Arroyo Trabuco 3.75 miles to the south of the study area, which ultimately drains into the Pacific Ocean 7.75 miles to the south.

Within the study area, Oso Creek supports 0.57 acre of USACE/RWQCB WUS and approximately 1.95 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation.

La Paz Creek

La Paz Creek is a mapped USGS blueline stream that is mostly channelized. La Paz Creek originates at El Toro Reservoir, approximately 3.25 miles to the north of the study area. The creek transitions from a concrete-lined channel to an earthen-bottomed channel approximately 0.35 mile to the north of the study area, just downstream of the Oso Parkway crossing. La Paz Creek enters the study area at the northern boundary in the western portion of the study area and flows south for approximately 170 feet. La Paz Creek drains into Oso Creek near the center of the study area. This portion of La Paz Creek is dominated by southern willow scrub and supports a patch of freshwater marsh habitat within the creek. Mapped soils within La Paz Creek include Corralitos loamy sand and Riverwash.

9 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

Within the study area, La Paz Creek supports 0.08 acre of USACE/RWQCB WUS and approximately 0.30 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation.

Table 2 JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES1

USACE/RWQCB CDFW Drainage (acres)2 (acres) Oso Creek 0.57 1.95 La Paz Creek 0.08 0.30 TOTAL 0.65 2.25 1 Jurisdictional acreages overlap and are not additive (e.g., USACE/RWQCB acreages are included in the CDFW acreages. 2 Acreage is rounded to the nearest hundredths.

3.4 PLANTS

HELIX identified a total of 68 plant species within the study area during surveys to date, of which 39 (57 percent) are non-native species (Appendix A).

3.5 ANIMALS

A total of 14 animal species were identified on the study area during biological surveys, including 1 invertebrate species, 1 reptile species, 11 bird species, and 1 mammal species (Appendix B).

3.6 HABITAT AND WILDLIFE CORRIDOR EVALUATION

Wildlife corridors connect otherwise isolated pieces of habitat and allow movement or dispersal of plants and animals. Corridors can be local or regional in scale; their functions may vary temporally and spatially based on conditions and species presence. Local wildlife corridors allow access to resources such as food, water, and shelter within the framework of their daily routine. Animals use these corridors, which are often hillsides or tributary drainages, to move between different habitats. Regional corridors provide these functions over a larger scale and link two or more large habitat areas, allowing the dispersal of organisms and the consequent mixing of genes between populations.

The majority of the eastern study area is an existing golf course while a large portion of the western study area supports either existing development or disturbed land associated with the treatment plant. The center of the site includes the I-5 and culvert that runs under the freeway. Although the eastern portion of the study area supports a golf course, existing southern willow scrub and fresh water marsh habitat is present within Oso Creek. The ornamental vegetation also supports a number of shrubs and trees that provide habitat for wildlife. The eastern portion of the study area supports southern willow scrub and fresh water marsh habitat within La Paz Creek and Oso Creek. There are also small patches of ornamental and disturbed ornamental vegetation that habitat for wildlife. The non-native vegetation mapped within the eastern portion supports mostly short-pod mustard, which may provide low value foraging habitat for some bird species.

10 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

As previously described, corridors can be local or regional in scale. The majority of the study area and surrounding areas are highly urbanized and support limited resources that would facilitate wildlife movement. Although Oso Creek is major blueline stream that connects to Arroyo Trabuco, Oso Creek is highly constrained by adjacent development. Oso Creek flows through two golf courses upstream from the study area (Casta del Sol Golf Course and Mission Viejo Country Club); vegetation is intermittent in these portions of the creek. Also, Oso Creek becomes fully channelized 0.5 mile downstream from the study area, which supports little to no vegetation in this portion. The upstream portion of the La Paz Creek mostly occurs underground, and surfaces as a concrete channel roughly 0.60 mile upstream from the study area.

No known wildlife corridors or linkages occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan area. The majority of the Specific Plan area is highly urbanized and does not contain any resources that would contribute to the assembly and function of any local or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. Oso Creek represents the only potential resource that could be used in facilitating the movement of wildlife through the Specific Plan area.

The study area is not considered a regional wildlife corridor since it does not directly connect two or more large blocks of habitat that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another. The study area is located within a highly-trafficked area and is surrounded by existing development. The study area is not within any wildlife corridors or linkages identified by the South Coast Missing Linkages Project (South Coast Wildlands 2008). The nearest wildlife movement corridor to the study area identified by the South Coast Missing Linkages Project is the Santa Ana-Palomar Connection located approximately 38 miles to the southeast of the study area. The study area is not within any area identified as a NCCP/HCP Special Linkage (RJMC 1996). The nearest special linkage identified by the NCCP/HCP is the Shady Canyon Special Linkage located approximately 7.3 miles to the northwest of the study area.

While the study area is not considered a regional wildlife movement corridor, the study area does support habitat for local wildlife movement. Although urbanized, wildlife likely moves through the study area via Oso Creek by passing through the culvert under the I-5. However, most wildlife movement through the tunnel would likely occur at night since the upstream portion of the creek that occurs within the study area is an active golf course six day a week. Common mammals that are adapted to human disturbance (e.g., raccoon [Procyon lotor], skunk [Mephitis sp.], cottontail rabbits [Sylvilagus spp.], and coyote [Canis latrans]) may use the study area for local movement within the area. Common amphibian species, such as Baja California tree frog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca), may use study area and upstream portions of Oso Creek for juvenile dispersal. Birds species may fly over surrounding development to nest and/or forage within study area. However, movement of larger animals (e.g., mountain lion [Puma concolor]) through the study area is not expected since the study area is surrounded by heavy development within a heavily-trafficked area and is completely surrounded by existing development. Therefore, the study area supports opportunities for local wildlife movement of smaller animals and birds, but does not function as wildlife corridor since it does not directly connect to two or more blocks of large habitat.

11 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

3.7 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats

Sensitive vegetation communities/habitats are considered either rare within the region or sensitive by CDFW (CDFW 2010). Communities are given a Global (G) and State (S) ranking on a scale of 1 to 5. Communities afforded a rank of 5 are most common while communities with a rank of 1 are considered highly periled. The CDFW considers sensitive communities as those with a rank between S1 and S3.

The study area supports one sensitive plant community. Southern willow scrub is considered a special-status habitat pursuant to CDFW. A total of 1.26 acres of southern willow scrub was mapped on the study area.

Rare Plant Species

Rare plant species are uncommon or limited in that they: (1) are only found in the Orange County region; (2) are a local representative of a species or association of species not otherwise found in the region; or (3) are severely depleted within their ranges or within the region. Rare plant species include those species listed by CNPS with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1, 2, or 3 (CNPS 2017) or federally and state listed endangered and threatened species.

A total of 47 rare plant species were recorded within the seven-quadrangle database search conducted on CNDDB and CNPS (CDFW 2017, CNPS 2017). These species are included in Appendix E, Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur. Of the 47 rare plant species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 43 species were considered to not have a potential to occur on the study area, based on geographic range, elevation range, and/or lack of suitable habitat on the study area. The remaining four species were considered to have a potential to occur on the study area, primarily based on the presence of southern willow scrub and fresh water marsh habitats (see Appendix E). These species include southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), mud nama (Nama stenocarpa), white rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), and San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum). Rare plant surveys have not been conducted and are not warranted since all suitable southern willow scrub and fresh water marsh habitats will be avoided by the project.

Sensitive Animal Species

Sensitive animal species include federally and state listed endangered and threatened, candidate species for listing by USFWS or CDFW, and/or are species of special concern (SSC) pursuant to CDFW.

A total of 47 sensitive animal species were recorded within the seven-quadrangle database search conducted on CNDDB (CDFW 2017). These species are included in Appendix F, Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur. Of the 47 sensitive animal species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 30 species were considered to not have a potential to occur on the study area due to lack of suitable habitat and two species (Tricolored blackbird [Agelaius tricolor] and grasshopper sparrow [Ammodramus savannarum]) are not expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat for residence and/or breeding, but may disperse through or across the study area.

12 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018 immediate vicinity of the study area. Twelve of the 13 species with a low potential to occur are SSC, including arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii), coast Range newt (Taricha torosa), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), long-eared owl (Asio otus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; foraging potential only), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorasaccus; foraging potential only), and big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; foraging potential only). One species, southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), is a federally and state endangered species.

Of the remaining four species that have a potential to occur on the study area, three species have a moderate potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area (two-striped gartersnake [Thamnophis hammondii], white-tailed kite [Elanus leucurus], and least Bell’s vireo [Vireo bellii pusillus]) and one species has a high potential since this species was recorded within the study area in 2005 (southern western pond turtle [Actinemys pallida]). Two-striped garter snake and southern western pond turtle are SSC, white-tailed kite is a state fully protected species, and least Bell’s vireo is a federally endangered species. An evaluation of each sensitive animal species’ potential to occur on the study area is provided in Appendix F.

4.0 REGIONAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT

Biological resources located within the study area are subject to regulatory review by federal, State, and local agencies. Biological resources-related laws and regulations that apply to the project include the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), CWA, California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and CFG Code.

4.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Federal Endangered Species Act

Administered by the USFWS, the FESA provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction. Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a “take” under the ESA. Section 9(a) of the ESA defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” and “harass” are further defined in federal regulations and case law to include actions that adversely impair or disrupt a listed species’ behavioral patterns.

Sections 4(d), 7, and 10(a) of the FESA regulate actions that could jeopardize endangered or threatened species. Section 7 describes a process of federal interagency consultation for use when federal actions may adversely affect listed species. A biological assessment is required for any major construction activity if it may affect listed species. In this case, take can be authorized via a letter of biological opinion issued by the USFWS for non-marine related listed species issues. A Section 7 consultation is required when there is a nexus between federally listed species’ use of the site and impacts to USACE jurisdictional areas. Section 10(a) allows issuance of permits for “incidental” take of endangered or

13 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018 threatened species. The term “incidental” applies if the taking of a listed species is incidental to and not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity.

Federal Clean Water Act

Federal wetland regulation (non-marine issues) is guided by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the CWA. The Rivers and Harbors Act deals primarily with discharges into navigable waters, while the purpose of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all WUS. Permitting for projects filling WUS, including wetlands and vernal pools, is overseen by USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. Projects may be permitted on an individual basis or may be covered under one of several approved Nationwide Permits. Individual Permits are assessed individually based on the type of action, amount of fill, etc. Individual Permits typically require substantial time (often longer than six months) to review and approve, while Nationwide Permits are pre-approved if a project meets the appropriate conditions. A CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, which is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, must be issued prior to any 404 Permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

All migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories are protected under the federal MBTA, as amended under the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (FR Doc. 05-5127). The MBTA is generally protective of migratory birds but does not actually stipulate the type of protection required. In common practice, the MBTA is used to place restrictions on disturbance of active bird nests during the nesting season, which is generally defined as February 15 to August 31 for songbirds. In addition, the USFWS commonly places restrictions on disturbances allowed near active raptor nests, which the nesting season is generally defined as January 15 to August 31.

Critical Habitat

As described by the FESA, critical habitat is the geographic area occupied by a threatened or endangered species essential to species conservation that may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat also may include specific areas not occupied by the species but that have been determined to be essential for species conservation.

Critical habitat does not occur on the study area. The nearest critical habitats to the study area include arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) critical habitat, which is approximately 4.10 miles to the southeast (USFWS 2017a).

4.2 STATE REGULATIONS

California Environmental Quality Act

Primary environmental legislation in California is found in CEQA and its implementing guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines), which require that projects with potential adverse effects (i.e., impacts) on the environment undergo environmental review. Adverse environmental impacts are typically mitigated as a result of the environmental review process in accordance with existing laws and regulations.

14 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

California Endangered Species Act

The CESA is similar to the FESA in that it contains a process for listing of species and regulating potential impacts to listed species. Section 2081 of the CESA authorizes the CDFW to enter into a memorandum of agreement for take of listed species for scientific, educational, or management purposes. The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite are considered state fully protected species. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time, and no state licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting the species necessary for scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock (Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515).

The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) enacted a process by which plants are listed as rare or endangered. The NPPA regulates the collection, transport, and commerce of plants that are listed. The CESA followed the NPPA and covers both plants and animals that are determined to be endangered or threatened with extinction. Plants listed as rare under NPPA were designated threatened under the CESA.

California Fish and Game Code

4.2.3.1 Protection of Raptor Species

Raptors (birds of prey) and owls and their active nests are protected by CFG Code Section 3503.5, which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless authorized by the CDFW.

4.2.3.2 Streambed Alteration Agreement

The CFG Code (Section 1600 et seq.) requires an agreement with the CDFW for projects affecting riparian and wetland habitats through the issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement.

4.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS

Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP and Orange County Southern Subregion HCP

The western portion of the study area is located within the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP/HCP, which is a multi-jurisdictional conservation plan that includes portions of Orange County and multiple cities within the County. Rather than addressing sensitive species on an individual basis, the NCCP/HCP focuses on conservation of California sagebrush scrub (CSS) and adjacent habitats. Using a habitat-based conservation approach allows regional protection of CSS, CSS-associated species, and other covered habitats as well as establishes a mechanism to fund and implement a reserve system. The NCCP/HCP habitat reserve system protects over 37,000 acres of habitat, including CSS, chaparral, grasslands, riparian, oak woodlands, cliff and rock, forest, and other habitats.

The eastern portion of the study area occurs within the Orange County Southern Subregion Habitat Conservation Plan HCP, which is also a multi-jurisdictional conservation plan that includes portions of southern Orange Country. Similar to the NCCP/HCP, the HCP focuses on conservation of ten Conserved Vegetation Communities (coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, riparian, marsh, alkali meadow, open

15 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018 water, streamcourses, coast live oak woodland, and coast live oak forest) that provide habitat for covered species under the plan. The HCP also establishes a mechanism to fund and implement a reserve system.

The NCCP/HCP and HCP allow Participating Entities to issue take permits for listed species so that individual applicants do not need to obtain their own permits from USFWS and/or CDFW. The Incidental Take Permit for the NCCP/HCP covers impacts to three target species that are the focus of the NCCP/HCP, including coastal California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis), and orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra beldingi). In addition to Target Species, the NCCP/HCP provides the conservation, protection, and management of 36 Identified Species and their habitats. The Incidental Take Permit for the HCP covers impacts to 32 Covered Species and their habitats.

Although many of these species are not currently listed as endangered, threatened, or candidate species, the Incidental Take Permit would authorize impacts to these species if they become listed by the state in the future. Of the 37 Identified Species, 10 species are conditionally covered species, which require specific conditions to be met for the species to be considered covered under the NCCP/HCP.

The NCCP/HCP and HCP allow for Participating Entities to pay a fee for incidental take of species covered under plans. Although the study area falls within the NCCP/HCP and HCP subregions, MNWD is not a Participating Entity of the NCCP/HCP and is not a Participating Landowner of the HCP. Therefore, project activities are not covered under either plan. Although the project does not have any permit obligations, the project would need to ensure activities are not in conflict with either conservation plan.

5.0 PROJECT EFFECTS

This section describes potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the proposed project. Direct impacts immediately alter the affected biological resources such that those resources are eliminated temporarily or permanently. Indirect impacts consist of secondary effects of a project, including noise, decreased water quality (e.g., through sedimentation, urban contaminants, or fuel release), fugitive dust, colonization of non-native plant species, animal behavioral changes, and night lighting. The magnitude of an indirect impact can be the same as a direct impact; however, the effect usually takes a longer time to become apparent.

The significance of impacts to biological resources present or those with potential to occur was determined based upon the sensitivity of the resource and the extent of the anticipated impacts. For certain highly sensitive resources (e.g., a federally listed species), any impact would be significant. Conversely, other resources that are of low sensitivity (e.g., species with a large, locally stable population in the region but declining elsewhere) could sustain some impact with a less than significant effect.

16 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

5.1 SENSITIVE SPECIES

Rare Plant Species

No Impacts

A total of 43 of the 47 rare plant species recorded within the vicinity of the study area were not considered to have a potential to occur based on geographic range, elevation range, and/or lack of suitable habitat (see Appendix E). The remaining four species were considered to have a potential to occur on the study area based on the presence of southern willow scrub and fresh water marsh habitats. The project will temporarily impact disturbed, non-native vegetation, ornamental, park, and developed; southern willow scrub and fresh water marsh habitats will not be temporarily or permanently impacted. Therefore, rare plant surveys were not warranted since suitable habitat for the remaining four sensitive plant species will be avoided and no impacts to rare plant species are anticipated by the project.

Sensitive Animal Species

Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated

Of the 47 species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 30 species do not have a potential to occur on the study area due to lack of suitable habitat and two species (tricolored blackbird and grasshopper sparrow) are not expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat for residence and/or breeding, but may disperse through or across the study area (see Appendix F). Therefore, no significant impacts to these sensitive animal species are anticipated by the project.

Of the remaining 17 species, 13 species have a low potential to occur, three species have a moderate potential to occur, and one species has a high potential to occur. These species are discussed in further detail below. No direct impacts are proposed to suitable habitat for these species. All temporary disturbances associated with the project will be limited to the two work areas located on either side of I-5, which comprises disturbed areas, non-native vegetation, ornamental vegetation, park, and existing developed areas.

5.1.2.1 Low Potential Species

A total of 13 species were determined to have a low potential to occur on the study area based on the presence of low quality habitat, limited acreage of habitat, and lack of recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area. These species include arroyo chub, Coast Range newt, coastal whiptail, long-eared owl, northern harrier, southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, pallid bat, western mastiff bat (foraging potential only), western red bat, pocketed free-tailed bat (foraging potential only), and big free-tailed bat (foraging potential only). Suitable habitat located within the study area will be entirely avoided by the project; no permanent or temporary impacts are proposed to the suitable habitat. Therefore, the project will not directly or indirectly impact the following SSC: arroyo chub, Coast Range newt, coastal whiptail, western mastiff bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, or big free-tailed bat. The study area does not support suitable roosting habitat for western mastiff bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, or big free-tailed bat; therefore, no indirect impacts to roosting habitat is anticipated by the project.

17 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

Since the work areas are adjacent to suitable nesting habitat for long-eared owl, northern harrier, southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler, noise generated from project activities may indirectly impact these species during the nesting season. These species are not listed as federal or state endangered or threatened species, although these species are SSC and are protected under MBTA regulations. Indirect impacts during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31 for songbirds and January 15 through August 31 for raptors) would be a significant impact. Indirect disturbance to nesting birds are addressed in Section 5.4.2 below.

Southwestern willow flycatcher is a federally and state endangered species. Indirect noise impacts to this species during the nesting season (May 1 through August 31) would be a significant impact. To avoid potential indirect impacts to southwestern willow flycatcher, an avoidance and minimization measure is provided as BIO-1 in Section 6.0 below to conduct focused surveys if construction is proposed during the nesting season. If southwestern willow flycatcher is observed during focused surveys and construction is proposed during the nesting season, additional avoidance and minimization measures would be required as outlined in BIO-1.

Pallid bat and western red bat are both considered SSC. The I-5 bridge and mature trees located throughout the study area may provide suitable roosting habitat for pallid bat and western red bat. Although no direct impacts are proposed, indirect impacts within the maternity roosting season would be a significant impact. To avoid potential indirect impacts to pallid bat and western red bat, an avoidance and minimization measure is provided as BIO-2 in Section 6.0 below. If pre-construction surveys for pallid bat and/or western red bat identify maternity roosts and construction is proposed during the maternity roosting season, additional avoidance and minimization measures would be required as outlined in BIO-2 below.

5.1.2.2 Moderate Potential Species

A total of three species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area. These species include two-striped gartersnake, white-tailed kite, and least Bell’s vireo. As discussed above, suitable habitat located within the study area will be entirely avoided by the project; no permanent or temporary impacts are proposed to suitable habitat.

Two-striped gartersnake is a SSC. Although the study area supports suitable habitat for this species, no suitable habitat is present within the work areas. Since the work areas are adjacent to suitable habitat for this species, potential impacts could occur if an individual incidentally enters the work areas. To avoid any incidental impacts to two-striped garter snake, an avoidance and minimization measure is provided in BIO-3 in Section 6.0 below to conduct a clearance surveys and erect exclusionary fencing. The exclusionary fencing will be placed between suitable habitat and the work areas to deter two-striped garter snakes that may be present from entering the work area.

White-tailed kite is a state fully protected species. The study area does not support suitable foraging habitat, although suitable nesting habitat is present within the study area. No direct impacts to nesting habitat are proposed, but indirect noise impacts during the nesting season (generally January 15 through August 31) would be a significant impact. White-tailed kite is protected under MBTA regulations, which is addressed in Section 5.4.2 below.

18 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

Least Bell’s vireo is a federally endangered species. Indirect impacts to this species during the nesting season (March 15 through August 31) would be a significant impact. To avoid potential indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo, an avoidance and minimization measure is provided as BIO-1 in Section 6.0 below to conduct focused surveys if construction is proposed during the nesting season. If least Bell’s vireo is observed during focused surveys and construction is proposed during the nesting season, additional avoidance and minimization measures would be required as outlined in BIO-1.

5.1.2.3 High Potential Species

Southern western pond turtle is a SSC. Although the study area supports suitable habitat for this species, no suitable habitat is present within the work areas. Since the work areas are adjacent to suitable habitat for this species, potential impacts could occur if an individual incidentally enters into the work areas. To avoid any incidental impacts to southern western pond turtle, an avoidance and minimization measure is provided in BIO-3 in Section 6.0 below to conduct a clearance surveys and erect exclusionary fencing. The exclusionary fencing will be placed between suitable habitat and the work areas to deter southern western pond turtles that may be present from entering the work area.

5.2 SENSITIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats

No Impacts

The study area supports a small acreage of native vegetation totaling 1.45 acres, including 0.19 acre of fresh water marsh and 1.26 acres of southern willow scrub. The remainder of the study area comprises disturbed area (0.56 acre), disturbed/ornamental (0.05 acre), non-native vegetation (0.19 acre), ornamental (0.78 acre), park (1.79 acres), open water (0.10 acre), and developed areas (2.09 acres). No permanent impacts to vegetation are proposed. Temporary disturbance is proposed to 1.46 acres, including 0.46 acre of disturbed areas, 0.16 acre of non-native vegetation, 0.05 acre of ornamental, 0.62 acre of park, and 0.17 acre of developed areas. No temporary disturbance is proposed to fresh water marsh or southern willow scrub habitat. Temporary disturbances to vegetation communities are shown on Figure 7, Temporary Disturbances to Vegetation and Land Uses and summarized below in Table 3, Temporary Disturbances to Vegetation and Land Uses.

As discussed above, the study area supports 1.26 acres of southern willow scrub, which is considered a sensitive community pursuant to CDFW (CDFW 2010). Southern willow scrub is streambed-associated and is considered under CDFW jurisdiction. However, no permanent impacts or temporary disturbance are proposed to southern willow scrub and therefore no mitigation is required.

19 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

Table 3 TEMPORARY DISTURBANCES TO VEGETATION AND LAND USES

Temporary Existing Vegetation Community Disturbance (acres) (acres) Fresh Water Marsh 0.19 0.00 Southern Willow Scrub 1.26 0.00 Disturbed 0.56 0.46 Disturbed/Ornamental 0.05 0.00 Non-native Vegetation 0.19 0.16 Ornamental 0.78 0.05 Park 1.79 0.62 Open Water 0.10 0.00 Developed 2.09 0.17 TOTAL 7.01 1.46

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Riparian Habitat and Streambed

No Impacts

The study area supports drainages that are considered jurisdictional streambed pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, as regulated by CDFW. However, the project was designed to help ensure no permanent or temporary impacts to CDFW jurisdiction occur. Therefore, the project is not required to apply for a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement and no compensatory mitigation for impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would be warranted.

Although no temporary or permanent impacts are proposed to CDFW jurisdiction, temporary disturbance within the work areas are located adjacent to existing jurisdiction. The avoidance and minimization measure BIO-3 included in Section 6.0 below requires an exclusionary fence to be installed to avoid potential impacts to southern western pond turtle and two-striped garter snakes. A qualified biologist would determine the placement. Since suitable habitat for these species overlap with jurisdictional areas, the exclusionary fence would prevent inadvertent impacts to CDFW jurisdictional areas during construction activities.

5.3 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS/REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD JURISDICTION

No Impacts

The study area supports drainages that are considered jurisdictional streambed pursuant to Section under Sections 404/401 of the CWA, as regulated by USACE and RWQCB. However, the project was designed to help ensure no permanent or temporary impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction occur. Therefore, the project is not required to apply for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit or a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and no compensatory mitigation for impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction is warranted.

20 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek Study Area Vegetation and Land Uses Developed Disturbed Disturbed/Ornamental Fresh Water Marsh* Non-native Vegetation Open Water Ornamental Park Southern Willow Scrub* Temporary Disturbances Pot Holes Launching Shaft Receiving Shaft Proposed Work Area * Vegetation communities with potential to support sensitive plant and/or wildlife species.

Mission Viejo Country Club

Camino Capistrano ¦¨§5 H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig7_IMP_VEG.mxdGHD-04 2/27/2018 -EC Source: Aerial (NearMap, 2017) 0 75 Feet K

Temporary Disturbances to Vegetation and Land Uses Figure 7 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

Although no temporary or permanent impacts are proposed to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction, temporary disturbance within the work areas are located adjacent to existing jurisdiction. The avoidance and minimization measure BIO-3 included in Section 6.0 below requires an exclusionary fence to be installed to avoid potential impacts to southern western pond turtle and two-striped garter snakes. A qualified biologist would determine the placement. Since suitable habitat for these species overlap with jurisdictional areas, the exclusionary fence would prevent inadvertent impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional areas during construction activities.

5.4 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND MIGRATORY SPECIES

Wildlife Movement

Less than Significant

The study area is not part of a regional corridor and does not serve as a nursery site. The study area is not identified as being part of a local or regional corridor or linkage by the South Coast Missing Linkages (South Coast Wildlands 2008) or the NCCP/HCP (RJMC 1996). The study area currently has no direct connectivity to two or more large blocks of habitat and is constrained by existing development. The study area does support patches of native southern willow scrub and fresh water marsh in addition to ornamental vegetation, which provide habitat for local wildlife movement and migratory birds passing through the study area. Wildlife movement would mostly occur within Oso Creek. Mammals that are adapted to human disturbance may use the existing culvert under the I-5 to move from the eastern portion to the western portion of the study area. Birds may fly over existing development to access the study area for foraging and/or nesting. The project would not permanently impact local wildlife movement since only temporary disturbance to non-native vegetation and disturbed/developed areas are proposed, which will be returned to pre-project conditions. Although implementation of the project may result in some temporary disturbance to local wildlife movement from construction noise, the project would have a less than significant impact to wildlife movement and no mitigation measures would be required.

Migratory Species

Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated

Although the project would only temporarily impact non-native vegetation, disturbed areas, and developed areas, construction activities could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the MBTA and is considered a potentially significant impact. The nesting is generally defined as February 15 through August 31 for songbirds and January 15 to August 31 for raptors. Some non-native vegetation occurs within the work areas while denser vegetation occurs adjacent to the work areas, which offer nesting habitat for protected nesting bird species. An avoidance and minimization is provided as BIO-4 in Section 6.0 below, which would ensure the project is in compliance with MBTA regulations.

21 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

5.5 LOCAL POLICIES AND ORDINANCES

No Impacts

The project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservations or ordinances.

5.6 ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS

No Impacts

Although both study areas fall within the NCCP/HCP and HCP subregions, MNWD is not a Participating Entity of the NCCP/HCP and is not a Participating Landowner of the HCP. Therefore, project activities are not covered under either plan. Although the project does not have any permit obligations, the project would need to ensure activities are not in conflict with either conservation plan. The study area is not located within any reserves identified by either plan and therefore would not conflict with the conservation goals of the plans.

6.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES

The following provides recommended measures intended to minimize or avoid indirect impacts to biological resources:

22 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

a. No construction activities may occur within 500 feet of an active nest of a least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher. A qualified biologist shall clearly delineate the required avoidance buffer around the active least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher nest. The buffer shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities.

b. If construction activities are proposed within 500 feet of an occupied nest, a biological monitor shall be required to observe the behavior of any breeding least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher. The construction supervisor shall be notified if the construction activities appear to be altering the birds’ normal breeding behavior. No construction activities will be allowed within 500 feet of an occupied nest until the additional minimization measures have been performed. Such measures may include retaining a qualified acoustician to determine ambient noise levels and project-related noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat. Noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat shall not exceed an hourly average of 60 decibels (dB[A]), or a 3 dB(A) increase in noise levels if ambient noise levels exceed 60 dB(A). If project-related noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat are above 60 dB(A) or the 3 dB(A) increase in noise occurs, additional minimization measures shall be taken to reduce project-related noise levels to an acceptable level as determined by the biological monitor. Measures may include, but are not limited to, limitation on the use of certain equipment, placement of equipment, restrictions on the simultaneous use of equipment, use of noise barriers, or other noise attenuation methods as deemed appropriate by the biologist and acoustician. The USFWS and/or CDFW shall be notified of additional minimization measures taken to reduce noise during construction activities. If the biological monitor determines the construction activities are still affecting the birds’ behavior after implementing the additional minimization measures, the noise generating construction activities shall cease until USFWS and/or CDFW are contacted to discuss alternative methods. The biological monitor shall prepare written documentation of all monitoring activities at the completion of construction activities, which shall be submitted to CDFW/or USFWS.

d. The construction contractor shall only allow construction activities to occur during daylight hours and high noise levels shall generally be limited according to these hours.

23 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

e. The construction contractor shall require functional mufflers on all construction equipment (stationery or mobile) used within or immediately adjacent to any 500-foot avoidance buffers to reduce construction equipment noise. Stationing equipment situated so that noise generated from the equipment is not directed towards any habitat occupied by least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher.

f. The construction contractor will place staging areas as far as feasible from any occupied nest by least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher.

1. Construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, grubbing, etc.) shall occur outside the bat maternity roosting season (April 1 through August 31).

a. No construction activities may occur within 300 feet of any pallid bat or western red bat maternity roosts. A qualified biologist shall clearly delineate any pallid bat and/or western red bat maternity roosts and any required avoidance buffers, which shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities.

24 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

measures that were taken, which shall be submitted to CDFW at the completion of construction activities.

BIO-3 Southern Western Pond Turtle and Two-Striped Garter Snake. A clearance survey for southern western pond turtle and two-striped garter snake shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the proposed work areas no more than 14 days prior to construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, grubbing, etc.). The clearance survey shall be conducted within the work areas. If the qualified biologist determines that southern western pond turtles and/or two-striped garter snakes are present within the work areas during the clearance survey, no construction shall occur until the qualified biologist determines that the pond turtles and/or garter snakes have moved out of the work areas on their own accord. Once the qualified biologist determines that there are no southern western pond turtles or two-striped garter snakes within the work areas, an exclusionary fence shall be placed between suitable habitat and the work areas to prevent pond turtles and/or garter snakes from reentering the work area. The qualified biologist shall determine the placement of the exclusionary fencing. Prior to commencement of construction activities and after the exclusionary fencing has been erected, a final clearance survey shall be conducted within the work areas to confirm there are no southern western turtles or garter snakes within the work area. Exclusionary fencing will be required to stay in place for the duration of any construction activities to deter southern western pond turtles and/or two-striped garter snakes from entering the work areas. The results of the clearance surveys shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to MNWD.

BIO-4 Nesting Birds: Construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside of the general bird nesting season for migratory birds, which is February 15 through August 31 for songbirds and January 15 to August 31 for raptors.

If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the general bird nesting season for migratory birds and raptors (January 15 and August 31), MNWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey of potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active nests belonging to migratory birds and raptors afforded protection under the MBTA and CFG Code. The pre- construction survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to MNWD.

If the qualified biologist determines that no active migratory bird or raptor nests occur, the activities shall be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that an active migratory bird or raptor nest is present, no impacts within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the active nest shall occur until the

25 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

young have fledged the nest and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, or as determined by the qualified biologist. The biological monitor may modify the buffer or propose other recommendations in order to minimize disturbance to nesting birds.

26 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

7.0 CERTIFICATION/QUALIFICATION

The following individuals contributed to the fieldwork and/or preparation of this report:

Ezekiel Cooley B.S., Natural Resources with an emphasis in Wildlife, Central Michigan University, 2004

Amir Morales B.S., Hydrological Sciences, Minor Geographic Information Systems, University of California Santa Barbara, 2001

Aleksandra Richards M.A., International Relations, University of San Diego, 2010

B.A., Communications with an emphasis in Print Journalism, California State University Fullerton, 2008

Lauren Singleton M.S., Biology with an emphasis in Ecology and Entomology, California State University Long Beach, 2014

B.S., Biology with an emphasis in Ecology, California State University Long Beach, 2010

27 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

8.0 REFERENCES

American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 2017. AOU checklist of North and Middle America birds. Retrieved from: http://checklist.aou.org/taxa/.

Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffmann, C.A. Jones, F. Reid, D.W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum, Texas Tech University 223.

Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: Vascular plants of California. 2nd ed. University of California Press, Berkeley.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2017. California Natural Diversity Database and Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Sacramento, California. Retrieved from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed October 29, 2017.

2010. List of vegetation alliances and associations. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis Branch. September 2010.

California Native Plant Society. 2017. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California. California Native Plant Society. Retrieved from: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed October 29, 2017.

Emmel, T.C. and J.F. Emmel. 1973. The butterflies of Southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 26: 1-148.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical report Y-87-1. Vicksburg (MS): U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 100 p. with Appendices.

Google Earth. 2017. Aerial Imagery of Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek Study Area, 33.574687, -117.672208. Aerial Imagery from October 2016. Available from: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. Accessed November 3, 2017.

Gray, J. and D. Bramlet. 1992. Habitat Classification System: Natural Resources Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. Environmental Management Agency. County of Orange, Santa Ana, California.

Grumbles, B.H. and J.P. Woodley, Jr. 2007. Memorandum: Clean Water Act jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. June 5. 12 p.

Historic Aerials. 1970. Aerial Imagery of Potable, Recycled, and Sewer Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek Study Area, 33.574687, -117.672208. Retrieved from: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed November 15, 2017.

28 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

Holland R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 156 pp.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017a. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Retrieved from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.Aspx. Accessed October 29, 2017.

2017b. State Soil Data Access Hydric Soils List. USDA. Orange County, California. Retrieved from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. Accessed October 29, 2017.

Orange, County of. 2006. Orange County Southern Sub-Region Habitat Conservation Plan. July 2006. Retrieved from: https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/hcps/SoOrangeCoSubRegionHCP.html.

Riley, D.T. 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark. RGL No. 05-05. 4 p.

R. J. Meade Consulting, Inc. 1996. Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan. Parts I & II: NCCP/HCP. Prepared for County of Orange Environmental Management Agency and United State Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game. July 17, 1996.

South Coast Wildlands. 2008. South Coast missing linkages: A wildland network for the South Coast ecoregion. Retrieved from: http://www.scwildlands.org/reports/SCMLRegionalReport.pdf. March 2008.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. 2nd Ed. Sacramento: California Native Plant Society.

Taggart, Travis W. 2016. The Center for North American Herpetology: The Academic Portal to North American Herpetology. Retrieved from: http://www.cnah.org/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008a. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: Arid west region (Version 2.0). Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERCD/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

2008b. A field guide to the identification of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in the Arid West region of the Unites States. Technical Report TR-08-12, Ed. R.W. Lichvar, S.M. McColley. Hanover, New Hampshire: Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

2007. Questions and Answers for Rapanos and Carabell Decisions. June 5. 21 pp.

--- and EPA. 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 30. 60 pp.

29 Biological Technical Report for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 28, 2018

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Critical habitat mapping. GIS files provided by USFWS. Retrieved from: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed October 29, 2017.

2017b. National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/google-earth.html. Accessed October 29, 2017.

2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. January 19.

30 Appendix A Plant Species Observed Appendix A PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED

Family Scientific Name Common Name GYMNOSPERMS Pinaceae Pinus halepensis* Aleppo pine ANGIOSPERMS – EUDICOTS Aizoaceae Carpobrotus edulis* hottentot-fig Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree Schinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper tree Anacardiaceae Rhus ovata sugar bush Rhus integrifolia lemonade berry Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare* fennel Apocynaceae Vinca major* greater periwinkle Sonchus asper* prickly sow thistle Erigeron canadensis horseweed Pseudognaphalium californicum California everlasting Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Baccharis salicifolia mule fat Pulicaria paludosa* Spanish falsefleabane Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed Artemisia douglasiana mugwort Oncosiphon piluliferum* stiniknet Asteraceae Encelia farinosa brittlebush Isocoma menziesii goldenbush Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle Lactuca serriola* wild lettuce Xanthium strumarium cocklebur Artemisia douglasiana mugwort Cynara cardunculus* artichoke thistle Isocoma menziesii goldenbush Pseudognaphalium californicum California everlasting Bignoniaceae Jacaranda mimosifolia* jacaranda Boraginaceae Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum salt heliotrope Nasturtium officinale water cress Brassicaceae Brassica nigra* black mustard Hirschfeldia incana* short-pod mustard Cactaceae Opuntia ficus-indica* Indian-fig Caprifoliaceae Lonicera japonica* honeysuckle Marah macrocarpa wild cucumber Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita foetidissima calabazilla Ricinus communis* castor bean Euphorbiaceae Chamaesyce albomarginata* rattlesnake weed Acacia sp.* acacia Fabaceae Robinia pseudoacacia* black locust Moraceae Ficus carica* edible fig Callistemon citrinus* common bottle brush Myrtaceae Eucalyptus polyanthemos* silver dollar gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis* river red gum Nyctaginaceae Bougainvillea sp.* Bougainvillea Platanaceae Platanus racemosa western sycamore Rumex crispus* curly dock Polygonaceae Persicaria lapathifolia willow weed

A-1 Appendix A (cont.) PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED

Family Scientific Name Common Name Salix laevigata red willow Salicaceae Salix gooddingii Goodding's black willow Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Myoporum laetum* false sandalwood Scrophulariaceae Buddleja davidii* butterfly bush Solanum americanum white nightshade Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco Solanaceae Datura wrightii jimson weed Solanum americanum white nightshade Tamaricaceae Tamarix ramosissima* saltcedar Urticaceae Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea stinging nettle ANGIOSPERMS – MONOCOTS Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta* Mexican fan palm Cyperaceae Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda grass Stenotaphrum secundatum* Saint Augustine grass Cortaderia selloana* white pampasgrass Poaceae Arundo donax* giant reed Bromus diandrus* common ripgut grass Pennisetum setaceum* purple fountain grass Polypogon monspeliensis* annual beardgrass Typhaceae Typha sp. cattail *Non-native species

A-2 Appendix B Animal Species Observed or Detected Appendix B ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED

Order Family Scientific Name Common Name Invertebrates Decapoda Cambaridae Procambarus clarkii red swamp crayfish Reptiles Squamata Phrynosomatidae Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard Birds Apodiformes Trochilidae Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Gruiformes Rallidae Fulica americana American coot Aegithalidae Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Fringillidae Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Mimidae Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Passeriformes Parulidae Setophaga coronata yellow-rumped warbler Troglodytidae Troglodytes aedon house wren Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Tyrannidae Sayornis saya Say's phoebe Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird Mammals Rodentia Cricetidae Neotoma fuscipes dusky-footed woodrat

B-1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

B-2 Appendix C Representative Site Photographs Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

Photograph 1: View of the ornamental community in Photograph 2: View of the park community (i.e., golf Photograph 3: View of the freshwater marsh commu- the eastern portion of the study area, facing north. course) in the eastern portion of the study area, facing nity in the western portion of the study area, facing GHD-04 02/15/18 -EC northeast. south.

Photograph 4: View of the southern willow scrub com- Photograph 5: View of a disturbed area in the western Photograph 6: View of the non-native vegetation community in the western portion of the study area, facing portion of the study area, facing southwest. munity in the western portion of the study area, facing north. H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Attachment_C-RepresentativeSitePhotos1-6.indd southwest.

Note: See Figure 5 for photograph locations. Source: HELIX 2017

Representative Site Photographs Appendix C Appendix D Representative Drainage Photographs Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

Photograph 1: View of Oso Creek in the eastern por- Photograph 2: View of Oso Creek in the eastern por- Photograph 3: View of La Paz Cree in the western por- GHD-04 02/15/18 -EC tion of the study area, facing northeast (upstream). tion of the study area, facing southwest (downstream). tion of the study area, facing north (upstream).

Photograph 4: View of the four-cell box culvert where Photograph 5: View of the four-cell box culvert, facing Photograph 6: View of Oso Creek in the western por- Oso Creek drains under the I-5, facing east (upstream). south. tion of the study area, facing south (downstream). H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Attachment_D-RepresentativeDraingePhotos1-6.indd

Note: See Figure 6 for photograph locations. Source: HELIX 2017

Representative Drainage Photographs Appendix D Appendix E Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur Appendix E Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Coastal bluffs near the ocean and None. The study area does not beach dunes within sandy or gravelly Aphanisma blitoides aphanisma CRPR 1B.2 support coastal bluff or beach soils. Elevation range 1-305 m. dune habitats. Flowering period Jun-Sep. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, None. The study area does not valley and foothill grasslands, and support coastal bluff scrub, coastal Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s saltbush CRPR 1B.2 desert slopes. Associated with dunes, valley and foothill alkaline and clay soils. Elevation range grasslands, or desert 3-460 m. Flowering period Mar-Oct. slopes habitats. Small annual herb. Occurs in xeric, often mildly disturbed locales of coastal bluff scrub. Usually the None. The study area does not surrounding habitat is an open coastal Atriplex pacifica South Coast saltscale CRPR 1B.2 support coastal bluff scrub or sage scrub, although it is found on alkaline flat habitats. alkaline flats in areas devoid of taller shrubs. Elevation range 0-300 m. Flowering period Mar-Oct. Small annual herb. Occurs in None. The study area does not chenopod scrub, vernal pools, and support chenopod scrub, vernal Atriplex parishii Parish's brittlescale CRPR 1B.1 playas. Alkaline flats on the periphery pools, playa, or alkaline of salt pannes. Elevation range flat habitats. 0-470 m. Flowering period Jun-Oct. Small annual herb. This species is historically associated with the isolated alkaline flats of southern Atriplex serenana var. California valley areas that have None. The study area does not Davidson's saltscale CRPR 1B.2 davidsonii primarily been drained and converted support alkaline flat habitat. to residential housing or agriculture. Elevation range 0-200 m. Flowering period Apr-Oct. Medium perennial herb. Occurs in clay soils within vernally moist None. The study area does not FT/SE Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea grasslands and vernal pool periphery support vernally moist grassland or CRPR 1B.1 are typical locales. Elevation range vernal pool habitats. 25-860 m. Flowering period Mar-Jun.

E-1 Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 None. The study area does not Medium perennial herb. Occurs on support dry, rocky slopes or dry, rocky slopes within openings in Calochortus weedii var. intermediate mariposa chaparral, coastal scrub, or CRPR 1B.2 chaparral, coastal scrub, and intermedius lily grassland habitats. Additionally, the grassland habitats. Elevation range study area is below the elevation 0-680 m. Flowering period Jun-Oct. range of this species. Small annual herb. Grows in very sandy substrates near the beach, Lewis’ evening None. The study area does not Camissonia lewisii CRPR 3 typically on beach bluffs. Elevation primrose support beach bluff habitat. range. Elevation range 0-300 m. Flowering period Mar-Jun. Moderate. There is a potential for this species to occur within the Large annual herb. Occurs in southern willow scrub and fresh seasonally moist (saline) grasslands, water marsh habitats. The potential including mesic areas in valley and Centromadia parryi ssp. is considered moderate since this southern tarplant CRPR 1B.1 foothill grasslands, alkaline locales, australis species was recorded on the and peripheral salt marshes. Elevation Consortium of California Herbaria in range 0-480 m. Flowering period 2013, approximately 3.2 miles to Jun-Oct. the east of the study area within Canada Chiquita. Small annual herb. Occurs in sandy None. The study area does not Chaenactis glabriuscula var. soils within coastal bluff scrub and Orcutt’s pincushion CRPR 1B.1 support coastal bluff scrub or orcuttiana coastal dunes. Elevation range coastal dunes habitat. 0-100 m. Flowering period Apr-Jul. Small annual herb. Occurs within clay lenses largely devoid of shrubs. Can be occasionally seen on vernal pool None. The study area does not Chorizanthe polygonoides long-spined CRPR 1B.2 and even montane meadows support clay lenses, vernal pools, var. longispina spineflower peripheries near vernal seeps. montane meadows, or seeps. Elevation range 30-1500 m. Flowering period Apr-Jun.

E-2 Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 None. The study area does not Medium perennial herb. Occurs on support suitable Gabbro/ Gabbro and metavolcanic soils in metavolcanic soils or chaparral/oak Clinopodium chandleri San Miguel savory CRPR 1B.2 interior foothills, chaparral, and oak woodland habitats. Additionally, the woodland. Elevation range 0-1100 m. study area is below the elevation Flowering period Mar-Jul. range of this species. Large shrub. Occurs on mesic north- facing slopes in southern mixed None. The study area does not Comarostaphylis diversifolia chaparral. Rugged steep drainages summer holly CRPR 1B.2 support mixed chaparral or steep ssp. diversifolia seem to be a preferred location for drainages. isolated shrubs. Elevation range 30- 790 m. Flowering period May-Jun. Small annual herb. Sandy soils within None. The study area does not chaparral, cismontane woodland, and support chaparral, cismontane slender-horned FE/SE Dodecahema leptoceras alluvial fan scrub. Elevation range woodland, or alluvial fan scrub. spineflower CRPR 1B.1 200-760 m. Flowering period Additionally, the study area is below May-Jun. the elevation range of this species. Medium perennial herb. Dry, stony places associated with coastal sage None. The study area does not scrub, chaparral, or valley and foothill Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. support coastal sage scrub, Blochman’s dudleya CRPR 1B.1 grasslands near the coast. Frequently blochmaniae chaparral, or valley and foothill associated with clay and serpentine grassland habitats. soils. Elevation range 5-450 m. Flowering period Apr-Jun. None. The study area does not Small perennial herb. Occurs in rocky support rocky, volcanic, or areas and volcanic or sedimentary soil Dudleya cymosa ssp. FT sedimentary substrates or chaparral Santa Monica dudleya within chaparral or coastal sage ovatifolia CRPR 1B.1 or coastal sage scrub habitats. scrub. Elevation range 150-1675 m. Additionally, the study area is below Flowering period May-Jun. the elevation range of this species.

E-3 Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Medium perennial herb. Occurs in heavy soils (often clay) and sandstone None. The study area does not outcrops. Often associated with dry, support heavy soils or sandstone many-stemmed Dudleya multicaulis CRPR 1B.2 stony places within coastal sage outcrops. There is no coastal sage dudleya scrub, valley grasslands, and coastal scrub, valley grasslands, or coastal plains. Elevation range 0-600 m. plains on the study area. Flowering period May-Jun. Medium perennial herb. Occurs in rocky soils within chaparral, None. The study area does not FT/ST cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, support chaparral, cismontane Dudleya stolonifera Laguna Beach dudleya CRPR 1B.1 and valley and foothill grassland woodland, coastal scrub, or valley habitats. Elevation range 10-260 m. and foothill grassland habitats. Flowering period May-Jul. Medium perennial herb. Occurs on very steep north-facing slopes within None. The study area does not coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, support coastal bluff scrub, Dudleya viscada sticky dudleya CRPR 1B.2 cismontane woodland, or coastal chaparral, cismontane woodland, or scrub. Elevation range 10-550 m. coastal scrub habitats. Flowering period May-Jun. Small annual or perennial herb. None. The study area does not Pendleton button- Vernally moist grasslands near beach Eryngium pendletonensis CRPR 1B.1 support vernally most grasslands celery bluffs. Elevation range 15-110 m. near beach bluffs. Flowering period Apr-Jun. Medium shrub. Sea bluffs in coastal None. The study area does not scrub within rocky soils. Also occurs in support sea bluffs with coastal Euphorbia misera cliff spurge CRPR 2B.2 Mojavean desert scrub. Elevation scrub or Mojavean desert scrub range 10-500 m. Flowering period habitats. Jan-Aug. Perennial evergreen tree. Occurs on clay or gabbro soil in chaparral and None. The study area does not Hesperocyparis forbesii Tecate cypress CRPR 1B.1 closed-cone coniferous forests. support chaparral or closed-cone Elevation range 80-1500 m. Flowering coniferous forests. period N/A.

E-4 Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Small annual grass. Saline flats and None. The study area does not depressions in grasslands or in vernal Hordeum intercedens vernal barley CRPR 3.2 support saline flats, depressional pool basins. Elevation range areas, or vernal pool basins. 5-1000 m. Flowering period Mar.-Jun. Medium perennial herb. Occurs in sandy or gravelly areas within None. The study area does not Horkelia cuneata var. mesa Horkelia CRPR 1B.1 chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and support chaparral, coastal sage puberula coastal mesas. Elevation range scrub, or coastal mesa habitats. 70-870. Flowering period Mar-Jul. Large perennial herb. Occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, Mojavean None. The study area is located desert scrub, meadows and seeps Imperata brevifolia California satintail CRPR 2.B1 outside of this species’ (often alkali), riparian scrub, and geographic range. other mesic habitats. Elevation range 0-1215 m. Flowering period Sep-May. Small shrub. Occurs in coastal scrub habitat intermixed with grassland. None. The study area does not Isocoma menziesii var. decumbent goldenbush CRPR 1B.2 Typically associated with clay soils. support coastal scrub or grassland decumbens Elevation 10-135 m. Flowering period habitat. Apr-Nov. Medium annual herb. Occurs in coastal salt marsh, upper end of tidal None. The study area does not Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulter's goldfields CRPR 1B.1 inundation areas, and vernal pools. support coastal habitat or vernal coulteri Elevation range 0-1000 m. Flowering pools. period Apr-May. Medium shrub. Occurs in closed-cone None. The study area does not coniferous forest, chaparral, support closed-cone coniferous cismontane woodland, and forest, chaparral, or cismontane heart-leaved pitcher metavolcanic soils in the Santa Ana Lepechinia cardiophylla CRPR 1B.2 woodland habitats and lacks sage Mountains in Orange and Riverside metavolcanics soils. Additionally, Counties and near Mt. Woodson in the study area is below the San Diego County. Elevation range elevation range of this species. 600-1200 m. Flowering period Apr-Jul.

E-5 Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Large perennial shrub. Occurs in None. The study area does not Santa Catalina Island coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub Lycium brevipes var. hassei CRPR 3.1 support coastal bluff scrub or desert-thorn habitats. Elevation range 65-300 m. coastal scrub habitats. Flowering period Jun. Medium perennial herb. Usually None. The study area does not occurs in the understory in chaparral, support chaparral, cismontane cismontane woodland, and lower Monardella hypoleuca ssp. intermediate woodland, or lower montane CRPR 1B.3 montane coniferous forests. Often in intermedia monardella coniferous forests. Additionally, the steep brushy areas. Elevation range study area is below the elevation 400-1250 m. Flowering period range of this species. Jun-Sep. None. The study area does not Small perennial herb. Chaparral support chaparral, cismontane understory, typically beneath mature Monardella hypoleuca ssp. woodland, or lower montane felt-leaved monardella CRPR 1B.2 stands of chamise in xeric situations. lanata coniferous forests. Additionally, the Elevation range 300-1575 m. study area is below the elevation Flowering period May-Oct. range of this species. Small perennial herb. Lower montane coniferous forest and montane None. The study area does not chaparral, usually near rocky ruble support lower montane coniferous Monardella macrantha ssp. and boulders where shrub cover was Hall’s monardella CRPR 1B.3 forests or montane chaparral. hallii limited. Canopy may either provide Additionally, the study area is below occasional shade or be lacking. the elevation range of this species. Elevation range 730-2195 m. Flowering period May-Aug. Small annual herb. Vernal pools and alkaline marshes. This cryptic species typically grows in the deeper portions None. The study area does not Myosurus minimus ssp. little mousetail CRPR 3.1 of vernal pool basins, sprouting support vernal pool or marsh apus immediately after the surface water habitat. has evaporated. Elevation range 20-640 m. Flowering period Mar-Jun.

E-6 Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Moderate. There is a potential for this species to occur within the southern willow scrub and fresh Medium annual or perennial herb. water marsh habitats. The potential Occurs in marshes and swamps and is considered moderate since this Nama stenocarpa mud nama CRPR 2B.2 along lake margins and riverbanks. species was recorded on the Elevation range 5-500 m. Flowering Consortium of California Herbaria in period Mar-Oct. 2001, approximately 1.8 miles to the southeast of the study area within Arroyo Trabuco. Small annual herb. Restricted to vernal pools. Grows at mid-levels within the deeper pools to the basin None. The study area does not Navarretia prostrata prostrate navarretia CRPR 1B.1 bottoms of the shallower pools. support any vernal pools. Elevation range 0-700 m. Flowering period Apr-Jul. None. The study area does not Large perennial shrub. Xeric chaparral support chaparral or coastal scrub and coastal scrub with sandstone or habitats within sandstone or gabbro Nolina cismontana chaparral nolina CRPR 1B.2 gabbro soils. Elevation range soils. Additionally, the study area is 140-1275 m. Flowering period below the elevation range of May-Jul. this species. Small annual herb. Occurs in openings of coastal scrub and valley and None. The study area does not Pentachaeta aurea ssp. Allen’s pentachaeta CRPR 1B.1 foothill grassland habitats. Elevation support coastal scrub or valley and allenii range 75-520 m. Flowering period foothill grassland habitats. Mar-May. Medium annual herb. Occurs in None. The study area does not closed-cone coniferous forest or support closed-cone coniferous chaparral. Occasionally associated Phacelia keckii Santiago Peak phacelia CRPR 1B.3 forest or chaparral habitats. The with open areas along streams study area is below the elevation Elevation range 545-1600 m. range of this species. Flowering period May-Sep.

E-7 Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Medium perennial herb. Occurs in chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal None. The study are does not Phacelia ramosissima var. south coast branching scrub, coastal salt marshes and support chaparral, coastal dunes, CRPR 3.1 austrolitoralis phacelia swamps within sandy or rocky coastal scrub, coastal salt marshes, substrates. Elevation range 5-300 m. or coastal swamps. Flowering period Mar-Aug. Moderate. There is a potential for this species to occur within the southern willow scrub habitat. The Large perennial herb. Occurs within potential is considered moderate sandy or gravelly soils along stream since a number of individuals were Pseudognaphalium white rabbit-tobacco CRPR 2B.2 benches, dry streambeds, and recorded within San Juan Creek, leucocephalum canyons. Elevation 0-500 m. with nearest occurrence recorded Flowering period Jul-Oct. on the Consortium of California Herbaria in 2015, approximately 4.5 miles to the southeast of the study area within San Juan Creek. Large shrub. Occurs in chaparral habitats with a relatively open canopy cover and coastal scrub. Typically None. The study are does not occurs on north-facing slopes and Quercus dumosa Nuttall’s scrub oak CRPR 1B.1 support chaparral or coastal scrub may grow in dense monotypic stands. habitats. Prefers sandy or clay loam soils. Elevation range 15-400 m. Flowering period Mar-May. Small annual herb. Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and None. The study area does not coastal scrub. Occasionally found in support suitable habitat for Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort CRPR 2B.2 alkaline soils within those habitats. chaparral, cismontane woodland, or Elevation range 15-800 m. Flowering coastal scrub habitats. period Feb-May.

E-8 Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3

Medium perennial herb. Occurs None. The study area does not salt spring within alkaline, mesic soils within Sidalcea neomexicana CRPR 2B.2 support suitable alkaline soils within checkerbloom springs and marshes. Elevation range spring or marsh habitats. 0-1500 m. Flowering period Apr-Jun.

Medium perennial herb. Occurs at the None. The study area does not periphery of coastal salt marsh. Soils support suitable saltmarsh habitat Suaeda esteroa estuary seablite CRPR 1B.2 are usually mapped as tidal flats. or tidal flats. Additionally, the study Elevation range 0-5m. Flowering area is above the elevation range of May-Oct. this species. Low. There is a potential for this species to occur within the southern willow scrub and fresh Medium perennial herb. Occurs in water marsh habitats. However, the vernally mesic soils within cismontane potential is considered low since woodland, coastal scrub, lower this species has not been recorded montane coniferous forest, meadows recently within the vicinity of the Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster CRPR 1B.2 and seeps, marshes and swamps, study area. The most recent grasslands, streams, springs, and occurrence within the vicinity of the disturbed ditches. Elevation range study area was recorded on the 0 – 2050 m. Flowering period Jul-Nov. Consortium of California Herbaria in 2009, approximately 14.5 miles to the northeast of the study area in the Santa Ana Mountains. Large shrub. Gabbro soils in low None. The study area does not growing chamise chaparral and sage support chaparral or sage scrub scrub. Usually, conditions are quite Tetracoccus dioicus Parry’s tetracoccus CRPR 1B.2 habitats or Gabbro soils. xeric with only limited annual growth. Additionally, the study area is below Elevation range 165-1000 m. the elevation range of this species. Flowering period Apr-May.

E-9 Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Large perennial herb. Typically grows on north-facing slopes within None. This species occurs further maritime chaparral, coastal sage south of the study area. The study FT/ST Verbesina dissita big-leaved crownbeard scrub, and mixed chaparral habitats. area does not support maritime CRPR 1B.1 Favors gravelly soil with humus chaparral, coastal sage scrub, or topsoil. Elevation range 45-205 m. mixed chaparral habitats. Flowering period May-Aug. Source: HELIX (2017) 1 Sensitive species reported within a six-quadrangle database search on CNDDB and CNPS, which included the following quadrangles: Dana Point, El Toro, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, San Juan Capistrano, and Tustin. 2 Listing is as follows: F = Federal; S = State of California; E = Endangered; T = Threatened. CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank: 1A – presumed extinct; 1B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2A – rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere; 3 – more information on distribution, endangerment, ecology, and/or taxonomic validity is needed. Extension codes: .1 – seriously endangered; .2 – moderately endangered; . 3 – not very endangered. 3 Potential to Occur is assessed as follows: None: Habitat suitable for species survival does not occur on the study area, the study area is not within geographic range of the species, and/or the study area is not within the elevation range of the species; Low: Suitable habitat is present on the study area but of low quality and/or small extent. The species has not been recorded recently on or near the study area. Although the species was not observed during surveys for the current project, the species cannot be excluded with certainty; Moderate: Suitable habitat is present on the study area and the species was recorded recently near the study area; however, the habitat is of moderate quality and/or small extent. Although the species was not observed during surveys for the current project, the species cannot be excluded with certainty; High: Suitable habitat of sufficient extent is present on the study area and the species has been recorded recently on or near the study area, but was not observed during surveys for the current project. However, focused/protocol surveys are not required or have not been completed; Presumed Present: The species was observed during focused surveys for the current project and is assumed to occupy the study area; Presumed Absent: Suitable habitat is present on the study area but focused surveys for the species were negative.

E-10 Appendix F Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur Appendix F Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Invertebrates Most commonly found in swale, Branchinecta earth slump, or depression pools in None. The study area does not San Diego fairy shrimp FT sandiegonensis unplowed grasslands. Requires cool- support vernal pools. water pools. Typically occurs in deep vernal pools None. The study area does not Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp FE and seasonal wetlands at least 30 support vernal pools. centimeters deep. Fish None. The study area does not Occurs in still brackish water that is Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby FE/SSC support suitable brackish water shallow and high in dissolved oxygen. habitat for this species. Low. The study area supports slow moving streams with sandy/muddy bottoms, particularly within Oso Creek downstream of the I-5 culvert. However, the potential for this species is considered low since suitable habitat is not present Prefers slow moving streams or upstream or downstream from this backwaters with sand or mud location and this portion of Oso bottoms. Streams are typically Gila orcuttii arroyo chub SSC Creek receives significant runoff deeper than 40 centimeters from surrounding development (16 inches). Primary food source is (e.g., I-5, golf courses), which poor aquatic vegetation and invertebrates. water quality limits the study area’s suitability for this species. The nearest CNDDB occurrence record of this species was observed in 1998 within Arroyo Trabuco, approximately 1.25 miles to the east of the study area.

F-1 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Fish (cont.) Typically migrate up freshwater streams from saltwater or brackish None. The study area does not Oncorhynchus mykiss steelhead - southern FE water to spawn. Southern steelhead support suitable habitat for this irideus California DPS have a greater tolerance to warmer species. water. Occurs in perennial streams located in the headwaters of Santa Ana and None. The study area is not located San Gabriel rivers. Prefers summer in headwater streams and does not Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 3 Santa Ana speckled dace SSC water temperatures between 17 and support reaches with significant 20°C within shallow reaches with riffles. riffles. Amphibians None. The study area is not located within the USFWS mapped population range for this species. This species requires periodic Found on banks with open-canopy flooding to change terrace and pool riparian forest characterized by complexity, which does not occur willows, cottonwoods, or sycamores; Anaxyrus californicus arroyo toad SSC within the study area. Additionally, breeds in areas with shallow, slowly Oso Creek receives significant moving streams, but burrows in urban runoff from adjacent adjacent uplands during dry months. development (e.g., I-5, golf courses), which poor water quality limits the study area’s suitability for this species. Occurs in open coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland, along sandy or gravelly washes, floodplains, alluvial fans, or playas; require None. The study area does not Spea hammondii western spadefoot SSC temporary pools for breeding and support suitable temporary pools friable soils for burrowing; generally required for breeding. excluded from areas with bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana) or crayfish (Procambarus spp.)

F-2 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Amphibians (cont.) Low. The study area supports suitable slow-moving streams that may be suitable for breeding and adjacent riparian habitat for Breeds in ponds, reservoirs, and foraging. However, there are no slow-moving streams; often found in records of this species within the Taricha torosa Coast Range newt SSC riparian forest, woodlands, chaparral, immediate vicinity the study area. or grassland within one kilometer of The nearest CNDDB occurrence breeding habitat. record was observed in 1999, approximately 7.7 miles to the northeast of the study area within the Santa Ana Mountains. Reptiles Most common in desert habitats but also occur in chaparral, sagebrush, None. The study area does not Arizona elegans valley-foothill hardwood, pine- support suitable desert, chaparral, California glossy snake SSC occidentalis juniper, and annual grass. Prefers sagebrush, grassland, or open sandy areas with scattered woodland habitat. brush, but also found in rocky areas. Low. The study area supports some suitable habitat for this species Open coastal sage scrub, chaparral, within the southern willow scrub and woodlands. Frequently found habitat. However, the habitat along the edges of dirt roads within the study area is limited to a traversing its habitats. Important small area and does not connect to Aspidoscelis tigris coastal whiptail SSC habitat components include open, any other suitable habitat. The stejnegeri sunny areas, shrub cover with nearest CNDDB occurrence record accumulated leaf litter, and an was observed in 2001, abundance of insects, spiders, approximately 4.8 miles to the or scorpions. southwest of the study area within Aliso and Wood Canyons Wilderness Park

F-3 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Reptiles (cont.) Occurs in dense chaparral, coastal None. The study area does not sage scrub, and grassland habitats, support dense chaparral, coastal Crotalus ruber red diamond rattlesnake SSC particularly among rock outcrops or sage scrub, or grasslands suitable piles of debris with a supply of for this species. burrowing rodents for prey. High. The study area supports Almost entirely aquatic; occurs in suitable habitat for this species freshwater marshes, creeks, ponds, within Oso Creek and La Paz Creek. southern western pond rivers and streams, particularly where Actinemys pallida SSC This species was recorded within turtle basking sites, deep water retreats, the study area on CNDDB in 2005 and egg laying areas are readily within Oso Creek downstream from available. the I-5 culvert. Coastal sage scrub and open areas in chaparral, oak (Quercus sp.) woodlands, and coniferous forests with sufficient basking sites, None. The study area does not adequate scrub cover, and areas of support chaparral, oak woodlands Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard SSC loose soil; require native ants, coastal scrub, or grassland habitats especially harvester ants suitable for this species. (Pogonomyrmex spp.), and are generally excluded from areas invaded by Argentine ants (Linepithema humile). None. The study area does not Primarily found in chaparral but also Salvadora hexalepis support chaparral, coastal scrub, or coast patch-nosed snake SSC inhabits coastal sage scrub and areas virgultea grassland habitats suitable for this of grassland mixed with scrub. species. Moderate. The study area supports Occurs along perennial and suitable habitat with riparian intermittent streams bordered by vegetation. The nearest CNDDB Thamnophis hammondii two-striped gartersnake SSC dense riparian vegetation, but occurrence record was observed in occasionally associated with vernal 1999, approximately 1.30 miles to pools or stock ponds. the southeast of the study area within the Santa Ana Mountains.

F-4 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Birds Breeds in dense stands of cattails Not Expected. Although the study (Typha sp.) or bulrushes area supports some small patches (Schoenoplectus sp./Scirpus sp.) of fresh water marsh habitat, the Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird SCE/SSC located within large freshwater habitat is sporadic and limited in marshes. Forages in adjacent open acreage. There is no adjacent habitats, such as agricultural fields, foraging habitat for this species. pastures, or grasslands. Breeds and forages in dense Not Expected. The study area does grasslands (prefers native grasslands) not support suitable grassland on rolling hills, plains, valleys, and habitat, although this species may Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow SSC lower mountain slopes. This species occasionally pass through the study nests directly on the ground within area to access more suitable thick grasses. habitat. Typical foraging habitat includes grassy and open, shrubby habitats. None. The study area does not Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle SFP Generally, nests on remote cliffs; support suitable nesting or foraging require areas of solitude at a distance habitat for this species. from human habitation. Low. The study area supports suitable habitat within the southern willow scrub habitat, although the habitat within the study area is limited to a small area and does not connect to any other suitable habitat. Suitable foraging habitat is Occurs in oak woodlands and riparian not present within the study area, Asio otus long-eared owl SSC forests in proximity to open foraging although grasslands do occur habitat. approximately 0.5 mile to the southwest of the study area. The nearest CNDDB occurrence record was observed in 1984, approximately 4.2 miles to the east of the study area within Cañada Gobernadora.

F-5 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Birds (cont.) Typical habitat is grasslands, open None. The study area does not scrublands, agricultural fields, and support grassland, open scrubland, Athene cunicularia burrowing owl SSC other areas where there are ground or other open areas suitable for this squirrel burrows or other areas in species. which to burrow. Campylorhynchus None. The study area does not Occurs in coastal sage scrub with brunneicapillus coastal cactus wren SSC support cactus patches suitable for large cactus for nesting. sandiegensis this species. Low. The study area supports some suitable habitat nesting habitat within the southern willow scrub; Nests on ground amongst dense however, the vegetation is limited vegetation within salt and freshwater in acreage and surrounded by marshes, meadows, and riparian development. Suitable foraging woodlands. Forage on small habitat is not present within the Circus cyaneus northern harrier SSC mammals and songbirds within open study area, although grasslands do areas with low-growing vegetation, occur approximately 0.5 mile to the such as deserts, agricultural fields, southwest of the study area. The pastures, grasslands, floodplains, nearest CNDDB occurrence record marshes, and estuaries. was observed in 1987, approximately 6.7 miles to the northeast of the study area near Coto de Caza. Generally occurs along larger river None. The study area is located Coccyzus americanus western yellow-billed systems, where it nests in riparian outside of this species’ known FT/SE occidentalis cuckoo forest dominated by willows (Salix range and does not support large sp.) and cottonwoods (Populus sp.). river systems.

F-6 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Birds (cont.) Moderate. The study area supports suitable nesting habitat for this species within the southern willow scrub habitat. Suitable foraging Nests in trees with dense canopies habitat is not present within the within open grasslands, woodlands, study area, although grasslands do and marshes. Forages for small Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite SFP occur approximately 0.5 mile to the mammals within lightly southwest of the study area. The grazed/ungrazed pastures nearest CNDDB occurrence record and grasslands. was observed in 2009, approximately 1.3 miles to the southeast of the study area within Arroyo Trabuco. Low. Suitable habitat is present within the southern willow scrub. The potential is considered low since the habitat is restricted to a Nests within thickets of willows or relatively small area, lacks other riparian understory usually connection to suitable habitat southwestern willow along streams, ponds, lakes, or Empidonax traillii extimus FE/SE upstream or downstream of the flycatcher canyons. Migrants may be found study area, and is surrounded by among other shrubs in development. The nearest CNDDB wetter areas. occurrence record was observed in 2003, approximately 5.5 miles to the southeast of the study area within San Juan Creek.

F-7 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Birds (cont.) Low. Suitable habitat is present within the southern willow scrub. The potential is considered low since the habitat is restricted to a Occurs in mature riparian relatively small area, lacks woodland. Nests in low, dense connection to suitable habitat riparian consisting of willow, Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat SSC upstream or downstream of the blackberry, and wild grape. Forages study area, and is surrounded by and nests within 10 feet of development. The nearest CNDDB the ground. occurrence record was observed in 2016, approximately 5 miles to the west of the study area within Laguna Canyon. Occurs most commonly in tidal emergent wetlands dominated by None. The study area does not pickleweed, or in brackish marshes Laterallus jamaicensis support tidal emergent wetlands or California black rail ST/SFP supporting bulrushes in association coturniculus brackish marsh habitat suitable for with pickleweed. Usually found this species. within the immediate vicinity of tidal sloughs. Passerculus sandwichensis Belding’s savannah Coastal marshes dominated by None. The study area does not SE beldingi sparrow pickleweed (Salicornia spp.) support coastal marsh habitat.

None. The study area and adjacent Polioptila californica coastal California Occurs in coastal sage scrub and areas do not support coastal scrub FT/SSC californica gnatcatcher very open chaparral. or chaparral habitat suitable for this species.

Coastal salt marshes, especially those dominated by cordgrass None. The study area does not Rallus obsoletus levipes Ridgeway’s rail FE/SE (Spartina sp.), but has been known support coastal salt marsh habitat to use brackish and suitable for this species. freshwater sites

F-8 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Birds (cont.) Low. Suitable habitat is present within the southern willow scrub. The potential is considered low since the habitat is restricted to a relatively small area, lacks Breeds in lowland and foothill connection to suitable habitat riparian woodland, dominated by Setophaga petechia yellow warbler SSC upstream or downstream of the cottonwoods, alder (Alnus sp.), study area, and is surrounded by or willows. development. The nearest CNDDB occurrence record was observed in 2016, approximately 5 miles to the west of the study area within Laguna Canyon. Coastal areas adjacent to the None. The study area does not ocean. Breeds on sandy/gravelly Sternula antillarum browni California least tern FE/SE support coastal areas suitable for beaches or stream banks. Feeds on this species. fish by aerial diving. Moderate. Suitable habitat is present within the southern willow scrub. The potential is considered moderate since the nearest CNDDB occurrence record was observed in Inhabits riparian woodland and is 2009, approximately1.1 miles to most frequent in areas that the southeast of the study area Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo FE combine an understory of dense, within Arroyo Trabuco. However, young willows or mule fat with a the habitat within the study area is canopy of tall willows. restricted to a relatively small area, lacks connection to suitable habitat upstream or downstream of the study area, and is surrounded by development.

F-9 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Mammals Low. The study area may support suitable roosting habitat due to the presence of the I-5 bridge and large Occurs in a wide variety of trees observed throughout the habitats, including deserts, study area. However, the potential grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, is considered low due to high noise Antrozous pallidus pallid bat SSC and forests. Roosts commonly in disturbance associated with the bridges, buildings, and tree freeway. The nearest CNDDB bark/cavities. occurrence record was observed in 1998, approximately 5.2 miles to the southwest of the study area within Rancho Mission Viejo. None. The study area does not support suitable chaparral, mule fat Primarily associated with mature scrub, or coastal sage scrub habitat. chaparral. It has, however, been All recent CNDDB observations of Chaetodipus californicus Dulzura pocket mouse SSC trapped in mule fat scrub and is this species within the vicinity of femoralis known to occur in coastal the study area were recorded on sage scrub. Camp Pendleton, approximately 30 miles to the southeast of the study area. None. The study area does not support suitable chaparral, mule fat Herbaceous openings within scrub, or coastal sage scrub habitat. coastal sage scrub, chaparral, All recent CNDDB observations of northwestern San Diego Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC grasslands, and desert scrub. Often this species within the vicinity of pocket mouse associated with sandy, rocky, or the study area were recorded on gravelly substrates. Camp Pendleton, approximately 30 miles to the southeast of the study area.

F-10 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Mammals (cont.) Arid scrub, mixed forest, and canyons in mountain ranges rising None. The study area does not Mexican long-tongued Choeronycteris mexicana SSSC from the desert. Typically roosts in support roosting or foraging habitat bat rock crevices and suitable for this species. abandoned buildings. Primarily occurs in sparsely vegetated areas within grassland habitats, but also found in open None. The study area does not coastal scrub habitat. Feeds on support grassland or coastal sage Dipodomys stephensi Stephens' kangaroo rat FE/ST filaree (Erodium sp.) and brome scrub habitat suitable for (Bromus sp.) seeds. Dig burrows in this species. firm soil or use abandoned pocket gopher burrows. Roosts under exfoliating rock slabs Low. Although the study area does on cliff faces and occasionally in not support suitable roosting large boulder crevices and building habitat, this species may forage cracks. Forages in a variety of open within the southern willow scrub Eumops perotis western mastiff bat SSC areas, including washes, habitat. The species was recorded californicus floodplains, chaparral, coastal sage on CNDDB in 1991, approximately scrub, woodlands, ponderosa pine 3.5 miles to the northwest of the forests, grassland, and study area within a currently agricultural areas. developed area of Lake Forest. Low. The study area may support Roosts are commonly in edge suitable roosting habitat due to the habitats adjacent to streams or presence of the I-5 bridge and large open fields, in orchards, and trees observed throughout the sometimes in urban areas. This study area. However, the potential species roosts in primarily in is considered low due to high noise Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat SSC dense-canopied trees and is disturbance associated with the possibly associated with intact freeway. The nearest CNDDB riparian habitat (particularly occurrence record was observed in willows, cottonwoods, oaks, in 1997, approximately seven miles walnuts, and sycamores). to the northeast of the study areas in Trabuco Canyon

F-11 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Mammals (cont.) Open chaparral, coastal sage scrub, None. The study area does not pinyon-juniper, and Joshua tree Neotoma lepida San Diego desert support chaparral, coastal sage SSC habitats. This species builds large, intermedia woodrat scrub, pinyon-juniper, or Joshua stick nests in rock outcrops or tree habitats. around clumps of cactus or yucca. Low. The study area does not Roosts in crevices within high rocky support suitable roosting habitat. cliffs, caverns, or buildings. The study area supports some Typically forages over water and suitable foraging habitat for this Nyctinomops pocketed free-tailed bat SSC among trees within arid habitats, species within the southern willow femorosaccus such as pine-juniper woodlands, scrub. This species was recorded on desert scrub, palm oasis, desert CNDDB in 1997, approximately wash, and desert riparian. 12.5 miles to the southeast of the study area within Camp Pendleton. Low. The study area does not support suitable roosting habitat. Found in a variety of habitats, The study area supports some including desert shrub, woodlands, suitable foraging habitat for this and evergreen forests. However, it species within the southern willow Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat SSC is most commonly found in arid, scrub habitat. This species was rocky habitats. This species mainly recorded on CNDDB in 1988, roosts in rock crevices on cliffs and approximately 11.1 miles to the rock crevices. northwest of the study area in Long Beach.

F-12 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Mammals (cont.) Only three populations are known to be extant today: one at the Dana Point Headlands in Orange County and two on Camp Pendleton in San None. The study area does not Diego County. The subspecies support coastal scrub, alluvial sage occurs within approximately 2.4 scrub, or grassland habitats suitable Perognathus longimembris miles inland of the Pacific Ocean Pacific pocket mouse SSC for this species. The study area is pacificus and has not been reliably recorded not located within the USFWS above 600 feet in elevation. It is mapped population range for this associated with fine-grained, sandy species. or gravelly substrates in coastal strand, coastal dunes, river alluvium, and coastal sage scrub growing on marine terraces. Associated with habitats in or near salt water marshes. Often associated with Salicornia marshes, None. The study area does not southern California salt Sorex ornatus salicornicus SSC but also occurs in dense willow and support salt water marsh suitable marsh shrew bulrush thickets. Requires dense for this species. vegetation and nesting areas that are protected from hightide.

F-13 Appendix F (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur1

Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Mammals (cont.) None. The study area does not support open shrublands, forest, or Dry, open shrublands, forest, and Taxidea taxus American badger SSC grassland habitats suitable for this grasslands with friable soils. species. No large burrows were observed on the study area. Source: HELIX (2017) 1 Sensitive species reported within a six-quadrangle database search on CNDDB and CNPS, which included the following quadrangles: Dana Point, El Toro, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, San Juan Capistrano, and Tustin. 2 Listing is as follows: F = Federal; S = State of California; E = Endangered; T = Threatened; CE = Candidate Endangered; CT = Candidate Threated; FP = Fully Protected; SSC = State Species of Special Concern. 3 Potential to Occur is assessed as follows. None: Species is so limited to a particular habitat that it cannot disperse across unsuitable habitat (e.g. aquatic organisms), and habitat suitable for its survival does not occur on the study area; Not Expected: Species moves freely and might disperse through or across the study area, but suitable habitat for residence or breeding does not occur on the study area (includes species recorded during surveys but only as transients); Low: Suitable habitat is present on the study area but of low quality and/or small extent. The species has not been recorded recently on or near the study area. Although the species was not observed during surveys for the current project, the species cannot be excluded with certainty; Moderate: Suitable habitat is present on the study area and the species was recorded recently near the study area; however, the habitat is of moderate quality and/or small extent. Although the species was not observed during surveys for the current project, the species cannot be excluded with certainty; High: Suitable habitat of sufficient extent for residence or breeding is present on the study area and the species has been recorded recently on or near the study area, but was not observed during surveys for the current project. However, focused/protocol surveys are not required or have not been completed; Presumed Present: The species was observed during biological surveys for the current project and is assumed to occupy the study area; Presumed Absent: Suitable habitat is present on the study area but focused/protocol surveys for the species were negative.

F-14 Appendix B Cultural Resources Survey Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Cultural Resources Study

February 2018 | GHD-04

Submitted to:

Moulton Niguel Water District 26161 Gordon Road Laguna Hills, CA 92653

Prepared for:

Stacie Wilson GHD Senior Archaeologist 175 Technology Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618

Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942

Stacie Wilson, M.S., RPA Kristina Davison, B.A. Dominique Diaz de Leon, B.A.

Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacement at I-5 and Oso Creek

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY

Submitted to:

Moulton Niguel Water District 26161 Gordon Road Laguna Hills, CA 92653

Prepared for:

GHD 175 Technology Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618

Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942

Stacie Wilson, M.S., RPA Kristina Davison, B.A. Dominique Diaz de Leon, B.A.

February 2018 | GHD-04

National Archaeological Database Information

Authors: Stacie Wilson, Kristina Davison, and Dominique Diaz de Leon

Firm: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

Client/Project: GHD Inc. / Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

Submitted to: Moulton Niguel Water District 26161 Gordon Road Laguna Hills, CA 92653

Report Date: February 2018

Report Title: Cultural Resources Study in Support of the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 And Oso Creek Project, Orange County, California

Type of Study: Cultural Resources Survey

New Sites: None

Updated Sites: None

USGS Quad: San Juan Capistrano 7.5' Quadrangle

Acreage: Approximately 7.01 acres

Key Words: Orange County; Interstate 5; Moulton Niguel Water District; Pipeline; Oso Creek; La Paz Creek; negative archaeological survey

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Location ...... 1 1.2 Project Description ...... 1 1.3 Regulatory Framework ...... 2 1.4 Project Personnel ...... 3 2.0 PROJECT SETTING ...... 3 2.1 Natural Setting ...... 3 2.2 Cultural Setting ...... 4 2.2.1 Prehistoric Period ...... 4 2.2.2 Ethnohistory ...... 5 2.2.3 Historical Background ...... 6 3.0 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND CONTACT PROGRAM ...... 8 3.1 Records Search ...... 8 3.1.1 Previous Surveys ...... 8 3.1.2 Previously Recorded Sites ...... 9 3.1.3 Other Archival Research ...... 10 3.2 Native American Contact Program ...... 11 4.0 METHODS ...... 12 4.1 Survey Methodology ...... 12 5.0 RESULTS ...... 14 6.0 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 14 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 15

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Records Search Maps (confidential, bound separately) B Native American Correspondence (confidential, bound separately)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF FIGURES

No. Title Follows Page

1 Regional Location ...... 2 2 USGS Topography ...... 2 3 Aerial Vicinity ...... 2 4 Proposed Project ...... 2

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page

1 Previous Studies within or Adjacent to the Study Area ...... 8 2 Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of the Study Area ...... 10 3 Native American Contact Program Responses ...... 11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) completed a cultural resources study for the Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements Project at I-5 and Oso Creek (project), located in the City of Mission Viejo, Orange County, California. The Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) is proposing replacement of existing potable water (PW) and recycled water (RW) pipelines using trenchless installation methods. The PW and RW pipelines transport water to and from existing pump stations located on the west side of the Interstate (I-) 5 freeway. The project would occur within a 7.01-acre study area, which is generally located at the I-5 approximately 0.30 miles to the south of Oso Parkway and one mile north of Crown Valley Parkway in the City of Mission Viejo.

This cultural resources study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended and the State CEQA Guidelines, and included a records search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, a review of historic aerial photographs and maps, and a pedestrian survey.

The records search results indicated that 42 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within one mile of the project, 12 of which are located within or adjacent to the study area. The records search results also indicated that a total of nine cultural resources have been previously recorded within one mile of the project; however, no sites have been recorded within the study area.

The field investigations included intensive pedestrian survey of the study area by a HELIX archaeologist on November 13, 2017. The survey did not result in the identification of any cultural material within the study area. As such, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. However, the project site is located within alluvial soils, where there is a potential for buried cultural resources, and the NAHC has identified the project vicinity as sensitive for cultural resources. Based on this, it is recommended that an archaeological and Native American monitoring program be implemented for ground disturbing activities during construction.

ES-1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ES-2 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate (I-) 5 and Oso Creek Project (project) is located in the City of Mission Viejo, Orange County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). The project study area is located within Section 12 of Township 7 South, Range 8 West on the San Juan Capistrano, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, USGS Topography). The project straddles I-5, approximately 0.30 mile to the south of Oso Parkway and one mile north of Crown Valley Parkway (Figure 3, Aerial Vicinity). The project study area, comprising approximately 7.01 acres, is within the Mission Viejo Country Club on the east side of I-5 and Moulton Niguel Water District’s (MNWD) Wastewater Plant 3A (treatment plant) in the western portions.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

MNWD would install the new PW and RW pipelines between the Caltrans bridge piers and below the potential scour depth of Oso Creek utilizing trenchless microtunneling installation methods (Figure 4, Proposed Project). The new PW pipeline would be a 21-inch diameter pipeline and the new RW pipeline would be a 30-inch diameter pipeline. The PW pipeline would be approximately 900 linear feet, the RW pipeline would be approximately 600 linear feet, and the pipelines would be encased in a 72-inch diameter steel casing. On the east side of I-5, the PW pipeline would continue as a split to the north and to the south from the receiving shaft. A 12-inch PW pipe would run for approximately 65 linear feet to the north to connect to an existing PW pipeline using open-cut trenching, and another 12-inch PW pipe would run for approximately 80 linear feet to the south underneath Oso Creek to an additional microtunneling entry shaft. This pipeline would continue further to the south and back to the west to connect to an existing PW pipeline using open-cut trenching. On the east side of I-5, the RW pipeline would connect to the existing 8-inch and 10-inch RW pipelines located slightly to the north of the receiving pit using open-cut trenching. On the west side of I-5, the PW pipeline would connect to the existing PW line from the launching shaft through a pipeline extension installed with open-cut trenching that would run to the west and then to the north. The RW pipeline would connect to the existing RW line from the launching shaft through a pipeline extension installed with open-cut trenching that would run to the north and then to the west, just south of the Galivan RW Reservoir. All pipelines would be steel. The project would also perform nine pothole excavations within the work area.

The reconnection to the existing pipelines would be made such that the existing valves that are currently within the creek bed are abandoned and new connections are made outside the limits of the creek. The existing pipelines would be abandoned in place and would not be removed.

1 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

(located on the west side of I-5) would be approximately 45 feet long by 15 feet wide in area and 20 feet in depth, and the receiving pit (located on the east side of I-5) would be circular with an approximate diameter of 14 feet and depth of 20 feet. For the 12-inch RW pipeline crossing under Oso Creek, the entry shaft (located on the south side of Oso Creek) would be circular with an approximate diameter of 14 feet and would have a depth of 20 feet. The receiving shaft for the 12-inch RW pipeline would be the same receiving shaft as for the larger pipelines. Following installation of the pipelines, the jacking and receiving shafts would be filled in and re-compacted to their existing contours.

Construction equipment would be typical of pipeline construction, including backhoes, a crane, front loader, dump trucks, water truck, flat-bed pipe delivery trucks, and equipment support trucks. Staging of pipeline materials and equipment would likely occur along Camino Capistrano and near the Plant 3A treatment plant. In the event that this site is not available, staging would occur within another developed location in the vicinity of the project site. The construction equipment driven inside the golf course will be restricted to staying on the concrete cart paths.

1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, and/or scientific importance. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Section 15064.5 discuss significant cultural resources as “historical resources,” and defines them as:

• resource(s) listed or determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][1]) • resource(s) either listed in the NRHP [National Register of Historic Places] or in a “local register of historical resources” or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant” (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][2]) • resources determined by the Lead Agency to meet the criteria for listing on the CRHR (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][3])

For listing in the CRHR, a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:

A. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; B. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; C. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; D. It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(4), a resource may also be considered a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA at the discretion of the lead agency.

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

! !

%&g( ! !

! AZUZA ?ø

! !

%&e( ! !

%&o(! ?¥

SAN Puddingstone

! ! ! ONTARIO

! GABRIEL Reservoir

! !

! !"`$

! !

! !"`$ !

! !

! POMONA !

WEST ! !

! !

! COVINA !

! SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ?z !

! ?z ! ! ?¬ !

! ! !

! !

! CHINO !

! !

! !"^$ ! !

WHITTIER !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! LOS ANGELES COUNTY !"a$

DOWNEY ! !

! !

! RIVERSIDE !

! LA !

! !

HABRA !

! !

%&q( !

! ! ?u !

! NORWALK BUENA

! ?Æ

! !

! PARK ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ?Æ

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

! ! ! !

! !

! ORANGE COUNTY ! ! !

%&o( ?Æ !

! !

! ! CORONA

! !

! ANAHEIM !

! ! !

! ! ! ! Lake

%&l( ! ! !

! !

! Mathews !

! !

! Irvine !

! ! ! Lake ! WESTMINSTER

LONG !

! !"a$ !

BEACH !

! !

?ì !

! Santa Ana Mountains

! ! SANTA

! !

! ANA

! !

! AÝ

%&l( !

! ?s

! !

! ! !

! ! !"^$ !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

AÎ !

! !

! ! !

! !

HUNTINGTON !

! !

%&l( !

BEACH IRVINE ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! NEWPORT !

! !

BEACH ?° !

! !

! MISSION ! !

! !

! VIEJO

! !

! ! !

! !

! Study Area

! !

! ?±

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

LAGUNA!

! ! !

BEACH ! !

Pacific ! RIVERSIDE COUNTY

! !

! SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Ocean ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

SAN !

! !

CLEMENTE !

! !

!"^$ !

CAMP !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! PENDELETON

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig1_Regional.mxdGHD-04 1/9/2018 -EC !

! !

Source:! Base Map Layers (Esri, 2013)

Miles !

0 6 !

! !

K !

! !

Regional Location!

! ! ! Figure 1 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

Potable Water and Recycled Water Study Area H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig2_USGS.mxdGHD-04 1/9/2018 -EC Source: San Juan Capistrano 7.5' Quad (USGS) 0 2,000 Feet K

USGS Topography Figure 2 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek

Oso Parkway

Mission Viejo Country Club

Moulton Marguerite Parkway Ranch Park

Cabot Road

Potable Water and Recycled Water Study Area ¦¨§5

Camino Capistrano

Crown Valley Parkway H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\BTR\Fig3_Aerial.mxdGHD-04 1/9/2018 -EC Source: Aerial (NAIP, 2015) 0 1,000 Feet K

¦¨§5

Cabot Road

Camino Capistrano H:\GIS\PROJECTS\G\GHD-04_OsoMNWD\Map\Cultural\Fig4_Proposed_Proj.mxdGHD-04 2/27/2018 -EC Source: Aerial (NAIP, 2015) 0 100 Feet K

Proposed Project Figure 4 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

All resources that are eligible for listing in the CRHR must have integrity, which is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Resources, therefore, must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In an archaeological deposit, integrity is assessed with reference to the preservation of material constituents and their culturally and historically meaningful spatial relationships. A resource must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which it is proposed for nomination.

California State Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) revised PRC Section 21074 to include Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) as an area of CEQA environmental impact analysis. Further, per new PRC Section 21080.3, a CEQA lead agency must consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project to identify resources of cultural or spiritual value to the tribe, even if such resources are already eligible as historical resources as a result of cultural resources studies.

1.4 PROJECT PERSONNEL

Stacie Wilson, M.S., RPA, is the principal investigator and primary author of this technical report. Senior technical review was provided by Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A., RPA. Kristina Davison, B.A. and Dominique Diaz de Leon, B.A. are co-authors of this report; Mary Villalobos, B.A. conducted the field survey. 2.0 PROJECT SETTING

2.1 NATURAL SETTING

The study area is located along portions of Oso Creek and La Paz Creek in southern Orange County (see Figures 1 and 2). Oso Creek flows through the study area from the northeast to the southwest. La Paz Creek converges with Oso Creek in the western portion of the project area, and Oso Creek then continues in a southward direction. Oso Creek flows into Arroyo Trabuco approximately 3.75 miles to the south of the study area, which ultimately drains into the Pacific Ocean 7.75 miles to the south. Oso Creek and La Paz Creek are both anthropogenically modified drainage features. The portions included within the study area are disturbed, open channels; the southeastern bank of Oso Creek near the existing golf cart bridge is protected by grouted rip rap, but the remainder of the channel within the study area is earthen-bottomed. La Paz Creek is an earthen-bottomed channel within the study area.

The topography of the eastern portion of the study area supports gently rolling terrain created for the golf course. The portion of the eastern study area between the golf course and I-5 supports moderately steep cross slopes that drain runoff from the freeway to the west and the golf course to the east; a cross slope draining runoff from I-5 to the east is also present along the western side of the freeway. The western portion of the study area is mostly flat apart from the portion through which La Paz and Oso Creek are located. Elevations range from approximately 294 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) near the center of the southern study area boundary and 331 feet AMSL near the southeastern corner. Temperatures in the project vicinity average 47 degrees Fahrenheit in January to around 80 degrees Fahrenheit in July, and the area receives little rain but is generally humid due to its proximity to the Pacific coast.

3 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

Geologically, the project area is underlain by upper Miocene marine deposits (Rogers 1965). Three soil types are mapped on the PWRW study area, including Bosanko clay, Corralitos loamy sand, and Riverwash (NRCS 2017). Riverwash is comprised of sandy and gravelly alluvium deposited by rivers and streams and comprises a majority of the soils mapped for the study area. The Bosanko soil series includes slightly acidic, neutral, and moderately alkaline clays and calcareous sandy clay loams which extend to approximately 30 inches (approximately 76.2 centimeters) in depth (NCSS 1997). The Corralitos soil series is characterized by deep, somewhat excessively drained young alluvial soils derived from acid sandstone and related rocks; Corralitos soils are generally found on alluvial fans and in small valleys (NCSS 1993). Corralitos loamy sand and Riverwash are mapped along the portions of Oso Creek and La Paz Creek within the study area.

Substantial portions of the study area have been subject to extensive disturbance through development over the course of several decades. The majority of Oso Creek is channelized and surrounded by dense development. A recent biological study conducted for the project identified approximately 5.46 acres of developed or disturbed habitat (including areas of disturbed plant communities, developed areas, and non-native vegetation) throughout the study area; this comprises approximately 78 percent of the total acreage (7.01 acres) of the study area (HELIX 2018). The remaining portion of the study area support native vegetation communities including southern willow scrub, and habitats such as fresh water marsh and open water along and within the creeks.

2.2 CULTURAL SETTING

2.2.1 Prehistoric Period

Proposed dates for the earliest human occupation in California vary from around 20,000 years ago (conf. Carter 1957, 1978, 1980; Bada and Schroeder 1974) to 10,000 years ago. Carter (1957, 1978, 1980), Minshall (1976) and others (e.g., Childers 1974; Davis 1968, 1973) have long argued for the presence of Pleistocene humans in California. However, these sites identified as "early man" are all controversial. The material from the sites is generally considered nonartifactual, and the investigative methodology is often questioned (Moratto 1984).

The most widely recognized timeline for the prehistory of Southern California was proposed by Wallace (1955) and divides the region’s prehistory into four main periods, or “horizons”: Early, Milling Stone (Archaic Period), Intermediate, and Late horizons. The best example of Early Prehistoric Period archaeological evidence in Southern California is in the San Dieguito complex of San Diego County, dating to over 9,000 years ago (Warren 1967; Warren et al. 2004). The San Dieguito Tradition is thought by most researchers to have an emphasis on big game hunting and coastal resources (Warren 1967). The material culture of the San Dieguito complex consists primarily of scrapers, scraper planes, choppers, large blades, and large projectile points. In some areas of California, the Early Prehistoric Period is often referred to as the Paleo-Indian period and is associated with the last Ice Age occurring during the Terminal Pleistocene (pre-10,000 years ago) and the Early Holocene, beginning circa 10,000 years ago (Erlandson 1994, 1997).

The Millingstone Horizon, or Archaic Period, dates from 7,000-8,600 to 1,300-3,000 years ago and is generally consistent with the Topanga complex of Los Angeles and the La Jolla complex of San Diego (Warren et al. 2004). The Millingstone Horizon is also referred to as the Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968). The Encinitas tradition is generally “recognized by millingstone assemblages in shell middens, often near sloughs and lagoons” (Moratto 1984:147). According to Wallace, “a changeover from hunting

4 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018 to the collection of seed foods is clearly reflected in the archaeological record for the period between 6000 and 3000 B.C. The importance of seeds in the diet of the prehistoric peoples can be seen in the numbers of food-grinding implements present at their settlements” (Wallace 1978:28). Basin metates, manos, discoidals, a small number of Pinto series and Elko series points, and flexed burials are also characteristic. Most of the archaeological evidence for Archaic Period occupation in southern California is derived from sites located in near-coastal valleys, and around estuaries that are present along the San Diego coast (Warren et al. 2004).

Dates for the Intermediate Horizon vary by locale but can generally be dated to between 2,000 BC and AD 500 (Elsasser 1978). The Intermediate Horizon is consistent with the Hunting Culture of Santa Barbara County and is characterized by the presence of Pinto style points, named after the Pinto Basin in Riverside County, an increased use of the mortar and pestle, and the consumption of fleshier foods such as acorns as opposed to small, hard seeds (Stickel 1978). This change resulted in the adoption of a more sedentary lifestyle as seen in the presence of seasonal campsites (Van Horn 1980).

The Late Prehistoric period is characterized by the incursion of Takic-speaking peoples of Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock into southern California. The expansion of the Takic group from a presumed Great Basin hearth land is unrefined, but several scholars have hypothesized as to when and how the so-called “Uto-Aztecan wedge” occurred. Sutton (2009) argues that the Takic group expanded into southern California from the San Joaquin Valley about 3,500 years ago. Moratto (1984) also proposes that Takic expansion into the Southern Coast region correlates to the end of the Early Period (Late Archaic) ca. 3,200 to 3,500 years ago, while Golla (2007) suggests an expansion of Uto-Aztecan speakers into southern California at approximately 2,000 years ago.

While the exact chronology of Takic-speaking groups’ immigration to southern California remains uncertain, the beginning of the Late Prehistoric Period is marked by evidence of a number of new tool technologies and subsistence shifts in the archaeological record and is characterized by higher population densities and intensification of social, political, and technological systems. The changes include the production of pottery and the use of the bow and arrow for hunting instead of atlatl and dart, a reduction of shellfish gathering in some areas, an increase in the storage of foodstuffs such as acorns, and new traits such as the cremation of the dead (Gallegos 2002; McDonald and Eighmey 2004).

Native American population figures in the region substantially increased toward the end of the Late Prehistoric Period. After AD 1600, a change occurred in settlement and subsistence patterns, and land use intensified region (Wilke 1974). The Late Prehistoric inhabitants of the Project area are believed to be the same as those recorded ethnohistorically, namely the Juaneño- Acjachemen, who are Takic-speaking people of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock.

2.2.2 Ethnohistory

The project is located in the traditional territory of the Juaneño-Acjachemen people. The language, culture, and territory of the Juaneño people and their southern neighbors, the Luiseño, are so closely related that the two are sometimes considered to be a single ethnic nationality (Bean and Shipek 1978; White 1963). However, Luiseño and Juaneño individuals consider themselves to be separate tribes, and Cameron (1987:319-321) noted archaeological differences between the two peoples. The name “Juaneño” was applied by the Spanish colonizers to the people indigenous to the area of Mission San Juan Capistrano, from whence the name comes and is often used today, although tribal members prefer to identify themselves as Acjachemen (Juaneño Band of Mission Indians 2016). They spoke Juaneño, a

5 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

Takic language of the Uto-Aztecan language family closely related to Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño (The Regents of the University of California 2016). A thorough account of Juaneño life and especially ritual thought and practice was recorded in Chinigchinich by Father Geronimo Boscana, a Spanish Friar who lived at Mission San Juan Capistrano and wrote his account sometime between the Mission’s founding in 1776 and his death in 1831 (Boscana 1846; Robinson 1846). Subsequent examination of the linguistic evidence in this record suggests that it was heavily influenced by the Gabrielino to the north; however, whether this influence was due to precontact cultural transmission or author error is unknown (Kroeber 1925: 636).

2.2.3 Historical Background

Coastal Southern California’s historic period began in September 1542 when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo landed on Santa Catalina Island as part of his exploration expedition up the coast north of “New Spain.” Although the impact of this initial contact did not usher in instant changes in the region, it marks the opening of the area to new contact, colonialism, and cultural shifts.

2.2.3.1 Spanish Period

During the mid-18th century, Spain escalated its involvement in California from exploration to colonization (Weber 1992). In 1769, a Spanish expedition headed by Gaspar de Portolá and Junípero Serra traveled north from San Diego seeking suitable locations to establish military presidios and religious missions in order to extend the Spanish Empire into Alta California. The Presidio of San Diego and Mission San Diego de Alcalá were established in 1769 followed by the Presidio of Monterey and Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo in 1770 in northern California. The missions and presidios stood, literally and figuratively, as symbols of Spanish colonialism, importing new systems of labor, demographics, settlement, and economies to the area. Agriculture and animal husbandry were the main pursuits of the Missions.

Mission San Juan Capistrano was established in 1776. Spanish Father Lasuen had attempted to found Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1775 but was recalled from the area to aid the Spanish in the San Diego revolt. Once the revolt ended, Father Junipero Serra accompanied his helpers back to the area and personally founded Mission San Juan Capistrano, the seventh of nine missions he founded (Mission San Juan Capistrano 2016). The Spanish forcibly recruited Juaneño to work at the Mission, even branding those the Spanish captured to better identify them if they ran away (Beckman 1997). The Mission and its associated community began to decline by 1812 due to a combination of factors, including an increasing mortality rate and decreasing birth rate among the Juaneño neophytes, who were ravaged by Spanish diseases for which they had no immunity, as well as an earthquake that destroyed a large section of the Mission (Mission San Juan Capistrano 2016).

2.2.3.2 Mexican Period

The Mexican Period of California history began in 1821 when Mexico won its independence from Spain and Alta California, which encompassed all of modern California, came under Mexican control. Spanish patterns of culture and influence, however, remained for a time. The missions continued to operate as they had in the past, and laws governing the distribution of land were also retained throughout the 1820s. In 1834, the Mexican government secularized the Mission system and partitioned former Mission lands as land grants, or ranchos. In order to obtain a rancho, an applicant submitted a petition containing personal information and a land description and map (diseño); large ranchos were granted to

6 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018 prominent and well-connected individuals, ushering in the Rancho Era, with the society making a transition from one dominated by the church and the military to a more civilian population, with people living on ranchos or in pueblos.

What is now southern Orange County was made up of Rancho Niguel, Rancho Mission Vieja, Rancho Trabuco, Rancho Los Desechos, and others (Orange County Recorder n.d.). With the numerous new ranchos in private hands, cattle ranching expanded and prevailed over agricultural activities.

2.2.3.3 American Period

American governance began in 1848, when Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ceding California to the United States at the conclusion of the Mexican–American War. While the American system required that the newly acquired land be surveyed prior to settlement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo bound the United States to honor the land claims of Mexican citizens who were granted ownership of ranchos by the Mexican government (Lech 2004). The Land Act of 1851 established a board of commissioners to review land grant claims, and land patents for the land grants were issued from 1876 to 1893.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the California Land Act of 1851 ensured that Rancho Niguel remained under the ownership of Juan Avila, who retained ownership until 1865, when he sold the property to his son-in-law’s father, John (Don Juan) Forster. Forster passed the property to his son and daughter-in-law, Marco and Guadalupe Forster, who sold it to Louis Moulton and Jean Pierre Daguerre in 1895. Moulton added Rancho Niguel to his previous holding of the adjacent Rancho San Joaquin (Armor 1921). Don Juan Forster had also purchased Rancho Trabuco in 1843 and Rancho Mission Vieja (also known as Rancho La Paz) in 1845, as well as other land holdings in southern California. Under Spanish and Mexican ownership, modern Orange County was dominated economically by cattle and sheep herding and by agriculture.

California’s acquisition by the United States substantially increased the growth of the population in California; the California gold rush, the end of the Civil War, and the passage of the Homestead Act implementing the United States’ manifest destiny to occupy and exploit the North American continent brought many people to California after 1848. Initially southern California was divided into only two counties: Los Angeles and San Diego. In 1853, San Bernardino County was added, placing what is now Riverside County primarily within San Diego County and partially within San Bernardino County. Orange County divided from Los Angeles County in 1889.

Oil was first successfully extracted in the 1890s and became another important resource for the county throughout the first half of the 1900s. However, agriculture remained the primary economic resource throughout the American period, with Orange County producing up to one-sixth of the nation’s Valencia oranges by the 1930s (Orange County Historical Society 2016). Increasing populations led to the development of the county’s first master planned communities in the late 1950s and 1960s.

7 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

3.0 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND CONTACT PROGRAM

3.1 RECORDS SEARCH

HELIX conducted a record search of the project area and a one-mile radius at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on October 31, 2017. The records search included archaeological and historical resources, locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies, and a review of the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) historic properties directory. The records search maps are included as Appendix A (Confidential Appendices, bound separately).

3.1.1 Previous Surveys

The records search results identified 42 previous cultural resources studies within a one-mile radius of the project area, 12 of which are located within or adjacent to the study area (Table 1, Previous Studies Within or Adjacent to the Study Area). The studies within or adjacent to the project area are composed of: five cultural resources assessments, one cultural resources data recovery program, one archival study, one historic study, one historic property survey report, two cultural resources monitoring reports, and one effects evaluation.

Table 1 PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE STUDY AREA Report ID Report Title Author, Date Report Type (OR-0000) OR-00286 Cultural Resources and the High Voltage Lowell, 1979 Cultural Transmission Line from San Onofre to Santiago Resources Substation and Black Star Canyon Assessment OR-00581 Cultural Resources Data Recovery Program for the McCoy et al, Data Recovery 230kv Transmission Line Rights-of way From San 1982 Program Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to Black Star Canyon and Santiago Substation and to Encina and Mission Valley Substations OR-01011 Archival Research for Interstate 5, From the Sorensen, Archival Study Confluence with I 405 to Route 1, Capistrano 1990 OR-01140 Cultural Resources Assessment for Moulton Niguel Demcak, 1991 Cultural Water District (MNWD) Reclaimed 30-000493, 30- Resources 000509, 30-000703, Water Distribution Facilities Assessment Project, South 30-001072 Orange County, California OR-01439 National Register Assessment Program of McCoy et al, Cultural Transmission Line Rights-of-way from San Onofre 1980 Resources Nuclear Generating Station to Black Star Canyon and Assessment Santiago Substation and to Encina and Mission Valley Substation OR-01519 Archaeological Assessment of LA Cellular Site Allen, 1996 Cultural #637.2, Oso Parkway/5 Freeway, Orange County, Resources California Assessment

8 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

Table 1 (cont.) PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE STUDY AREA Report ID Report Title Author, Date Report Type (OR-0000) OR-01602 Historic Study Report for Proposed HOV and Lanes Petershagen Historic Study Along Interstate 5 in San Juan Transportation and Tordoff, Capistrano, Orange County, California 1991 OR-01603 Historic Property Survey Report for Interstate 5 (-5) Huey, 1991 Historic Improvements from State Route 1 in 30-001215 the Property City of San Juan Capistrano to Approximately 1,000 Survey Feet North of El Toro Road in the Community of Lake Forest, Orange County, California OR-01632 Bonner, 1997 Cultural Cultural Resources Monitoring L.A. Cellular Site 637, Resources Mission Viejo, Ca. Monitoring OR-02085 Lapin, 2000 Cultural Bell Wireless Facility Cm 275-03, County of Orange, Resources California Assessment OR-03373 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Arrington and Cultural Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Sikes, 2006 Resources Project State of California: Volumes I and II Monitoring OR-03829 Section 106 Effects Evaluation Report for the Garcia, 2009 Effects Proposed OSO Creek Restoration and Protection Evaluation Project, City of Mission Viejo, County of Orange, California

3.1.2 Previously Recorded Sites

The record search results from the SCCIC indicate that nine cultural resources have been previously recorded within a one-mile radius of the project areas (Table 1, Previously Recorded Resources Within One Mile of the Study Area). One resource, P-30-176663, is located adjacent to the study area’s western boundary. This resource is the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF, formerly Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe [AT&SF]) Railway . Two of the resources, P-30-001764 and P-30-162485, were identified as the recordation of the same site, described as the “Aguaje del Cuate” (Two Springs). This site is located approximately 900 feet north of the study area. One additional resource, a historic site associated with the historic highway US-101 and the Galivan Overhead (P-30-001762), is located within a quarter-mile of the project. The remaining five resources recorded within the records search radius include four prehistoric lithic and ground stone scatters, and one undescribed site.

9 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

Table 2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE STUDY AREA Primary Trinomial Number Site Description Recorder, Year (CA-ORA-) (P-30-) Prehistoric lithic and ground stone scatter Unknown, 1972 000375 375 located on a low knoll Prehistoric lithic and ground stone scatter Cooley et al., n.d. 000426 426 located on a hilltop. May have been disturbed at time of recordation. Prehistoric lithic and ground scatter. Site Carter et al., 1974 000497 497 was disturbed by surface grading. Site is on a high knoll; no further Fenenga, 1976 000515 515 information on the site was noted on record. Prehistoric lithic and ground scatter on Cooley and Colegrove, 1976 000598 598 small knoll overlooking Oso Creek. Historic site; series of concrete slab Diss and Conolly, 2016 fragments belonging to a segment of 001762 1762H historic highway US-101 and the Galivan Overhead. Historic site; approximate location of the Diss and Conolly, 2016; Aguaje del Cuate ‘Twin Springs’ which was California State Office of used by the Spanish during the Mission Historic Preservation 162485, 1764H Period. The spring was capped by the Department of Parks and 001764 AT&SF railway company in 1887. The site Recreation, 2003 was listed as a California Point of Interest but was subsequently delisted. Historic site; approximately 14.7-mile long Tang, 2002; McCormick, segment of the Burlington Northern Santa 2007 Fe (formerly Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe) Railway; most of the rail line dates - 176663 originally to the 1880s; current physical characteristics reflect very little of the historic origin and the existing tracks are mostly modern in origin.

3.1.3 Other Archival Research

Various additional archival sources were also consulted, including historic topographic maps and aerial imagery. The purpose of this research was to identify historic structures and land use in the area.

No buildings appear in the project area on the 1902 USGS 30’ Corona quadrangle, but there are a few roads present, and the railway line is shown along the west edge of the project area on the map. The railway line is labeled as the “Southern California R.R. (Surf Line)” on the 1902 map, as well as the 1905, 1911, 1920, 1930, 1939, and 1946 editions of the map. No buildings are shown within the project on the 1942, 1954, or 1974 editions of the USGS 15’ Santiago Peak quadrangle, and none are shown on the 1948, 1949, 1968, or 1974 editions of the USGS 7.5’ San Juan Capistrano quadrangle.

10 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

The study area remains relatively undeveloped from 1938 into the 1970s (NETR Online 2018). On 1938, 1946, and 1952 aerial photographs, only the railroad and Camino Capistrano are shown within the project area, with Oso Creek traveling on the east and south side of the study area. The I-5 is first shown on the 1963 aerial photography; however, by the 1972 photograph, the treatment plant, golf course, and several nearby housing developments have been constructed (NETR Online 2018).

3.2 NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACT PROGRAM

HELIX contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on November 2, 2017 for a Sacred Lands File search and list of Native American contacts for the Project area. The response, received on November 3, 2017, noted that a search of the sacred lands file failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area, but noted that the vicinity is sensitive for cultural resources.

Letters regarding the Project were sent on November 9, 2017 to all contacts listed by the NAHC. Four responses have been received to date (Table 3, Native American Contact Program Responses). If any additional responses are received, they will be forwarded to MNWD staff. Native American correspondence is included as Appendix B (Confidential Appendices, bound separately).

Table 3 NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACT PROGRAM RESPONSES

Contact/Tribe Response California Cultural Resource Responded on January 26, 2018; they believe the project area is Preservation Alliance, Inc. sensitive for cultural resources and request to be included in the planning process and would like to receive a copy of the results of the records search and archaeological survey. They also recommend that the environmental documents for the project reflect the importance of avoidance and preservation in place. Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Responded on January 24, 2018; due to the location of the project Acjachemen Nation near/on the creek and considering that there were no environmental laws in place at the time of previous development, they request that Native and archaeological monitoring occur for all ground disturbing activities. San Pasqual Band of Mission Responded on December 11, 2017 (received January 12, 2018); project Indians is located beyond the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area and defer to the wishes of Tribes in closer proximity to the project area. Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Responded on November 20, 2017; project site has little cultural significance or ties to Viejas and recommend that the Tribe(s) closest to the cultural resources are contacted.

11 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

4.0 METHODS

4.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The project site was visited by HELIX archaeologist Mary Villalobos on November 13, 2017. A Native American Cultural Monitor from the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation was invited to participate in the survey; however, due to scheduling conflicts they were not able to be present.

The eastern portion of the study area is located within the Mission Viejo Country Club and golf course, the center of the study area includes a portion of the I-5, and the western portion is located within the treatment plant.

All accessible areas were surveyed, but overall, the study area exhibited a high degree of disturbance resulting from the past construction of the golf course, I-5, and the treatment plant. Visibility was low to moderate throughout most of the area (Plates 1-3). Vegetation included willow trees, coyote bush, arundo, castor bean, and various ornamental trees, shrubs, and grasses.

Plate 1. Overview of Oso Creek within western study area, view to the north.

12 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

Plate 2. Overview of the portion of the golf course within the APE, view to the north.

Plate 3. Overview of the APE southeast of the water tank, view to the north.

13 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

5.0 RESULTS

No cultural material was observed during the November 2017 archaeological field survey.

One previously recorded cultural resource, a segment of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (P-30-17666), is located adjacent to the study area on the west side. The railway is currently used as a Metrolink railroad track. As noted on the 2007 site record update, the railway has been in continuous use since its construction and lacks any historic attributes, aside from its location. The railroad and ROW are excluded from the study area and the resource will not be impacted by the proposed project. 6.0 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

While no historic or archaeological resources have been identified within the project area, the project is located in an area with alluvial soils, which typically have higher concentrations of cultural resources. As such, there is a potential for subsurface cultural resources to be present within the project area that may be encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities. In addition, there are important cultural resources in the region, and the NAHC has identified the project vicinity as sensitive for cultural resources. The Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation, have requested cultural resource monitoring of any ground disturbing activities. Therefore, the following measure is recommended:

14 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

7.0 REFERENCES

Armor, Samuel 1921 The History of Orange County, California, with Biographical Sketches of the Leading Men and Women of the County Who have been Identified with its Growth and Development from the Early Days to the Present. Electronic document available at https://archive.org/details/historyoforangec00armo, accessed January 31, 2018.

Bada, J.L. and R.A. Schroeder 1974 New Evidence for the Antiquity of Man in North America Deduced from Aspartic Acid Racemization. Science 184 (4138): 791-793.

Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. The Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Beckman, Tad 1997 Mission Period. Historical Sketch. Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation. Electronic document, available at http://www.juaneno.com/index.php/history/history- in-time-mission-period, accessed on June 28, 2016.

Boscana, Geronimo 1846 Chinigchinich. Translated by Alfred Robinson. Digitized by J.B. Hare in 2003. Electronic document available at http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/ca/bosc/bosc00.htm, accessed on June 23, 2016.

Cameron, Constance 1987 Archaeological Investigations on the Rancho San Clemente, Orange County, California. Archaeological Research Facility California State University, Fullerton.

Carter, George F. 1957 Pleistocene Man at San Diego. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

1978 An American Lower Paleolithic. Anthropological Journal of Canada 16:2-38.

1980 Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man in America. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Childers, W. Morlin 1974 Preliminary Report on the Yuha Burial, California. Anthropological Journal of Canada 12 (1):2-9.

Davis, Emma Lou (ed.) 1968 Early Man in the Mojave Desert. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1 (4):42-47.

15 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

Davis, Emma Lou (ed.) (cont.) 1973 People of the Old Stone Age at China Lake. Ms., on file at Great Basin Foundation, San Diego.

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

1997 The Middle Holocene along the California Coast. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, edited by J.M. Erlandson and M.A. Glassow. pp. 61–72. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 4, J.E. Arnold, series editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Elsasser, A.B. 1978 Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 37-57. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Gallegos, Dennis R. 2002 Southern California in Transition. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the Southern California Coast, edited by J. M. Erlandson and T. L. Jones, pp. 27–40. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6, J. E. Arnold, series editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Golla, Victor 2007 Linguistic Prehistory. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T. L. Jones, and K. A. Klar, pp. 71–82. AltaMira Press, New York.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) 2018 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek, Biological Technical Report. Report on file at HELIX

Juaneño Band of Mission Indians 2016 The Tribe. Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation. Electronic document available at http://www.juaneno.com/, accessed on June 23, 2016.

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

Lech, Steve 2004 Along the Old Roads: A History of the Portion of Southern California That Became Riverside County, 1772–1893. Steve Lech, Riverside, California

McDonald, Meg, and James D. Eighmey 2004 Late Period Prehistory in San Diego. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. Prepared for the Metropolitan Wastewater Department, City of San Diego. Encinitas, California: ASM Affiliates.

16 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

Minshall, Herbert L. 1976 The Broken Stones. Copley Books, San Diego.

Mission San Juan Capistrano 2016 “History.” Mission San Juan Capistrano: Historic Chapel, Landmark, and Museum. Electronic document available at http://www.missionsjc.com/history- preservation/history/, accessed on June 28, 2016.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.

NETR Online 2018 Historic Aerials. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Electronic document available at: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed January 16, 2018.

National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2017 Web Soil Survey. Electronic document available at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm, accessed January 16, 2018.

National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) 1993 Official Soil Series Descriptions: Corralitos series. Available online. Electronic document available at https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CORRALITOS.html, accessed January 16, 2018.

1997 Official Soil Series Descriptions: Bosanko series. Available online. Electronic document available at https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/B/BOSANKO.html, accessed January 16, 2018.

Orange County Recorder n.d. Spanish and Mexican Ranchos of Orange County. Orange County Recorder Archives. Electronic document available at http://www.oc.ca.gov/recorder/Archives/forms/Spanish%20and%20Mexican%20Ranch os.pdf, accessed on June 28, 2016.

Orange County Historical Society 2016 A Brief History of Orange County California. Electronic document available at http://www.orangecountyhistory.org/history-brief.html, accessed on June 28, 2016.

Robinson, Alfred 1846 Translator’s Introduction. Chinigchinich. Digitized by J.B. Hare. Electronic document available at http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/ca/bosc/bosc00.htm, accessed on June 23, 2016.

Rogers, Thomas H. 1965 Geologic Atlas of California – Santa Ana Sheet. Map No. 019, 1:250,000 scale. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey.

17 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

Stickel, E. Gary 1978 Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Areas Prehistory and Early History, Los Angeles County, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.

Sutton, Mark Q. 2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2&3):31-93.

The Regents of the University of California 2016 Juaneño. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages. Linguistics Department. University of California Berkeley. Electronic document available at http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~survey/languages/juaneno.php, accessed on June 23, 2016.

Van Horn, David M. 1980 Archaeological Survey Report: The 2,575-Acre Tres Hermanos Ranch in San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties, California. Archaeological Associates, Costa Mesa. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center. California State University, Fullerton.

Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.

1978 Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 25-36. The Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Warren, Claude N. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185.

1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams, pp. 1–14. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology 1(3). Portales, New Mexico.

Warren, C.N., G. Siegler, and F. Dittmer 2004 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. Prepared for the Metropolitan Wastewater Department, City of San Diego. Encinitas, California: ASM Affiliates.

Weber, David 1992 The Spanish Frontier in North America. Yale University Press.

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

18 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

Wilke, Philip 1974 Settlement and Subsistence at Perris Reservoir: A Summary of Archaeological Investigations. In Perris Reservoir Archaeology, edited by J.F. O’Connell, P.J. Wilke, T.F. King, and C.L. Mix, pp. 20–30. California Department of Parks and Recreation Reports No. 14. Sacramento.

19 Portable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at I-5 and Oso Creek | February 2018

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

20 Confidential Appendix A Records Search Maps (bound separately) Confidential Appendix B Native American Correspondence (bound separately)

Appendix C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM POTABLE AND RECYCLED PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS AT INTERSTATE 5 AND OSO CREEK PROJECT

Purpose of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, requires that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be established upon completing findings. CEQA stipulates that “the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.” This MMRP has been prepared in compliance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed according to schedule and maintained in a satisfactory manner during the construction of the project, as required. Table 1 has been prepared to assist the responsible parties in implementing the MMRP. The table identifies individual mitigation measures, monitoring/mitigation timing, the responsible agency for implementing the measure, and space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence found in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD) is the lead agency for the project under CEQA and shall administer and implement the MMRP. MNWD is responsible for review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition. MNWD shall rely on information provided by the project site observers/ monitors (e.g., construction manager, project manager, archaeologist, etc.) as accurate and up-to-date and shall provide personnel to field check mitigation measure status, as required. Project Description: MNWD’s existing potable water (PW) Oso Pump Station and recycled water (RW) Galivan Recycled Water Pump Station are located at 27198 Camino Capistrano and 26724 Camino Capistrano, respectively, in Mission Viejo. Existing pipelines take water from these facilities and cross under Interstate 5 (I-5) and Oso Creek. To upgrade these pipelines, MNWD would install new PW and RW pipelines between the Caltrans bridge piers and below the potential scour depth of Oso Creek utilizing trenchless microtunneling installation methods. The new PW pipeline that crosses from west of I-5 to east of I-5 would be an approximately 900-linear foot (LF), 21-inch diameter pipeline and the new RW pipeline that crosses from west of I-5 to east of I-5 would be an approximately 600-LF, 30-inch diameter pipeline. The 21-inch and 30-inch pipelines that cross under I-5 would be encased in a 72-inch diameter steel casing. On the east side of I-5, the PW pipeline would continue as a split to the north and to the south from the receiving shaft for the 21-inch PW pipeline. A 12-inch PW pipe would run to the north to connect to an existing PW pipeline using open-cut trenching, and another 12-inch PW pipe would run to the south underneath Oso Creek to an additional microtunneling entry shaft. This pipeline would continue to the south and back to the west to connect to an existing PW pipeline using open-cut trenching. Also on the east side of I-5, the RW pipeline would connect to the existing 8-inch and 10-inch RW pipelines located slightly to the north of the receiving pit using open-cut trenching. On the west side of I-5, the PW pipeline and RW pipeline would connect from the launching shaft to the existing PW and RW lines through pipeline extensions installed with open-cut trenching. All pipelines would be steel.

1 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

This page intentionally left blank.

2 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST FOR THE POTABLE AND RECYCLED PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS AT INTERSTATE 5 AND OSO CREEK PROJECT

Monitoring/ Responsible Verification of Mitigation Measure Mitigation for Compliance Timing Monitoring Initials Date

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Due to presence of suitable habitat Ongoing during MNWD for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher adjacent to the proposed work areas, construction – the following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented to avoid potential this mitigation indirect impacts to these two species: measure shall be included in 1. Construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside of the construction breeding season for least Bell’s vireo (March 15 through August 31) and southwestern documents for willow flycatcher (May 1 through August 31) to the extent feasible. implementation during 2. If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, grubbing, etc.) are proposed within the construction breeding season of least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher, focused protocol surveys for least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher shall be conducted prior to commencement of construction activities, within all suitable habitat located on the study area, along with a 500-foot buffer where suitable habitat occurs, to determine whether the habitat is occupied. Focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and during the breeding season in accordance with the most recent USFWS guidelines. Focused surveys for southwestern willow flycatcher shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with a southwestern willow flycatcher recovery permit and during the breeding season in accordance with the most recent USFWS guidelines. The results of the focused surveys shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to USFWS and/or CDFW.

3 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST FOR THE POTABLE AND RECYCLED PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS AT INTERSTATE 5 AND OSO CREEK PROJECT

Monitoring/ Responsible Verification of Mitigation Measure Mitigation for Compliance Timing Monitoring Initials Date a. No construction activities may occur within 500 feet of an active nest of a least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher to the extent feasible. A qualified biologist shall clearly delineate the required avoidance buffer around the active least Bell’s vireo or southwestern willow flycatcher nest. The buffer shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to the initiation of construction activities.

b. If construction activities are proposed within 500 feet of an occupied nest, a biological monitor shall be required to observe the behavior of any breeding least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher. The construction supervisor shall be notified if the construction activities appear to be altering the birds’ normal breeding behavior. No construction activities will be allowed within 500 feet of an occupied nest until the additional minimization measures are taken. Such measures may include retaining a qualified acoustician to determine ambient noise levels and project-related noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat. Noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat shall not exceed an hourly average of 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA), or a 3 dBA increase in noise levels if ambient noise levels exceed 60 dBA. If project-related noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat are above 60 dBA or the 3 dBA increase in noise occurs, additional minimization measures shall be taken to reduce project-related noise levels to an acceptable level as determined by the biological monitor. Measures may include, but are not limited to, limitation on the use of certain equipment, placement of equipment, restrictions on the simultaneous use of equipment, use of noise barriers, or other noise attenuation methods as deemed appropriate by the biologist and acoustician. The USFWS and/or CDFW shall be notified of additional minimization measures taken to reduce noise during construction activities. If the biological monitor determines that the construction activities are still affecting the birds’ behavior after implementing the additional minimization measures, the noise generating construction activities will be discontinued until USFWS and/or CDFW are contacted to discuss alternative methods. The biological monitor shall prepare written documentation of all monitoring activities at the completion of

4 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST FOR THE POTABLE AND RECYCLED PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS AT INTERSTATE 5 AND OSO CREEK PROJECT

Monitoring/ Responsible Verification of Mitigation Measure Mitigation for Compliance Timing Monitoring Initials Date construction activities, which shall be submitted to CDFW/or USFWS.

d. The construction contractor shall only allow construction activities to occur during daylight hours and high noise levels shall generally be limited according to these hours.

f. The construction contractor will place staging areas as far as feasible from any nest occupied by least Bell’s vireo and/or southwestern willow flycatcher.

5 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST FOR THE POTABLE AND RECYCLED PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS AT INTERSTATE 5 AND OSO CREEK PROJECT

Monitoring/ Responsible Verification of Mitigation Measure Mitigation for Compliance Timing Monitoring Initials Date BIO-2 Pallid Bat and Western Red Bat. Due to presence of suitable habitat for pallid bat and western Ongoing during MNWD red bat adjacent to the proposed work areas, the following avoidance and minimization construction – measures shall be implemented to avoid potential indirect impacts to these two species: this mitigation measure shall 1. Construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, grubbing, etc.) shall occur outside the bat be included in maternity roosting season (April 1 through August 31) to the extent feasible. construction documents for 2. If construction activities are proposed within the bat maternity roosting season, a implementation qualified biologist experienced with bats shall conduct a pre-construction survey within all during suitable habitat on the study area. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted 30 days construction prior to commencing construction activities and shall consist of two separate surveys conducted no more than a week apart. The second and final survey should be conducted no more than seven days prior to commencing construction activities. The pre- construction surveys should be conducted using a detector for echolocation calls, such as an Anabat bat detector system. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to MNWD.

b. If construction activities are proposed within 300 feet of a maternity roost, a biological monitor shall be required to observe the behavior of any roosting pallid

6 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST FOR THE POTABLE AND RECYCLED PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS AT INTERSTATE 5 AND OSO CREEK PROJECT

Monitoring/ Responsible Verification of Mitigation Measure Mitigation for Compliance Timing Monitoring Initials Date bat and/or western red bat. The construction supervisor shall be notified if the construction activities appear to be altering the bats’ normal roosting behavior. No construction activities will be allowed within 300 feet of pallid bat or western red bat maternity roosts until the additional minimization measures are taken, as determined by the biological monitor. The biological monitor shall prepare written documentation of all monitoring activities and any additional minimization measures that were taken, which shall be submitted to CDFW at the completion of construction activities.

BIO-3 Nesting Birds. Construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside Ongoing during MNWD of the general bird nesting season for migratory birds, which is February 15 through August 31 construction – for songbirds and January 15 to August 31 for raptors to the extent feasible. this mitigation measure shall 1. If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the be included in general bird nesting season for migratory birds and raptors (January 15 through construction August 31), MNWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey documents for of potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active nests belonging to migratory implementation birds and raptors afforded protection under the MBTA and California Fish and Game (CFG) during Code. The pre-construction survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to construction the commencement of construction activities. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to MNWD.

7 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST FOR THE POTABLE AND RECYCLED PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS AT INTERSTATE 5 AND OSO CREEK PROJECT

Monitoring/ Responsible Verification of Mitigation Measure Mitigation for Compliance Timing Monitoring Initials Date BIO-4 Southern Western Pond Turtle and Two-Striped Garter Snake. A clearance survey for southern Ongoing during MNWD western pond turtle and two-striped garter snake shall be conducted by a qualified biologist construction – within the proposed work areas no more than 14 days prior to construction activities this mitigation (i.e., earthwork, clearing, grubbing, etc.). The clearance survey shall be conducted within the measure shall work areas. If the qualified biologist determines that southern western pond turtles and/or be included in two-striped garter snakes are present within the work areas during the clearance survey, no construction construction shall occur until the qualified biologist determines that the pond turtles and/or documents for garter snakes have moved out of the work areas on their own accord. Once the qualified implementation biologist determines that there are no southern western pond turtles or two-striped garter during snakes within the work areas, an exclusionary fence shall be placed between suitable habitat and construction the work areas to prevent pond turtles and/or garter snakes from reentering the work area. The qualified biologist shall determine the placement of the exclusionary fencing. Prior to commencement of construction activities and after the exclusionary fencing has been erected, a final clearance survey shall be conducted within the work areas to confirm there are no southern western turtles and/or garter snakes within the work area. Exclusionary fencing will be required to stay in place for the duration of any construction activities to deter southern western pond turtles and/or two-striped garter snakes from entering the work areas. The results of the clearance surveys shall be documented by the qualified biologist and submitted to MNWD.

8 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST FOR THE POTABLE AND RECYCLED PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS AT INTERSTATE 5 AND OSO CREEK PROJECT

Monitoring/ Responsible Verification of Mitigation Measure Mitigation for Compliance Timing Monitoring Initials Date CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 Ground disturbing activities during construction will be monitored by a qualified archaeologist Ongoing during MNWD and a Native American monitor. If cultural material is encountered during monitoring, both the construction – archaeologist and the Native American monitor would have the authority to temporarily halt or this mitigation redirect activity in the area of the find while the cultural material is documented, and a decision measure shall is made regarding the significance/eligibility of the find and whether additional excavation, be included in analysis, or other mitigation measures are required. Determinations of significance will be made construction in consultation among the archaeological Principal Investigator, Native American monitor, and documents for MNWD staff. In the event that human remains are discovered, the County Coroner shall be implementation contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely during Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper construction treatment and disposition of the remains. All requirements of Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.

9 Potable and Recycled Pipeline Replacements at Interstate 5 and Oso Creek Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

This page intentionally left blank.