PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project

Transcription

1 APPENDIX Q PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project This appendix presents the Paleontological Resources Technical Report for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project. X:\SCE TRTP\PEA Final\Appendices\Cover Pages\Appendix Q cover.doc Q-0

2 APPENDIX Q PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project This page left intentionally blank. X:\SCE TRTP\PEA Final\Appendices\Cover Pages\Appendix Q cover.doc Q-1

3 Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project: Segments 4 to 11 PALEO PALEO ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES Transmission Lines, Substations, and New and Replacement Facilities, Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties, California Paleontological Resources PEA Technical Appendix Prepared By: E. Bruce Lander, Ph.D., C. Thomas Williams, Ph.D., and Hugh M. Wagner, Ph. D. Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc Winrock Avenue Altadena, California paleo@earthlink.net On Behalf Of: Southern California Edison Company Corporate Environment, Health & Safety Natural and Cultural Resources P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, California PEAI PALEO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES June sce trtp-tech rpt ebl.doc

4

5 Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project: Segments 4-11 Transmission Lines, Substations, and New and Replacement Facilities, Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties, California Paleontological Resources PEA Technical Appendix June 2007

6

7 Prepared By: E. Bruce Lander, Ph.D., C. Thomas Williams, Ph.D., and Hugh M. Wagner, Ph. D. Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc Winrock Avenue Altadena, California On Behalf Of: Southern California Edison Company Corporate Environment, Health & Safety Natural and Cultural Resources P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, California June 2007

8

9 Table of Contents Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations... vii Summary...1 Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose of Report Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project Project-Related Construction Activities Project Alternatives... 7 Chapter 2 Regulatory Setting Federal Requirements State Requirements Local (Regional Agency, County, and City) Requirements Chapter 3 Affected Environment Paleontological Resources of the Proposed Project Area Study Methods and Procedures Existing Paleontological Environment Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Paleontological Resources of the Proposed Project Area Permanent Construction-Phase Impacts Temporary Construction-Phase Impacts Operational-Phase Impacts Alternatives Chapter 5 Applicant Proposed Measures Construction Phase Operational Phase No-Build Alternative Other Alternatives Chapter 6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...51 Chapter 7 Cumulative Impacts...53 Chapter 8 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation Determining Significance Under CEQA CEQA Environmental Checklist Discussion of Significant Impacts Applicant Proposed Measures for Significant Impacts under CEQA PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES V

10 Table of Contents Chapter 9 Summary of Agency/Public Consultation and Coordination Federal Agencies State Agencies Local Agencies Chapter 10 List of Preparers...61 Chapter 11 Literature Cited...63 Figure Figure 1. Existing and New Project Corridors... 5 Tables Table 1.1 TRTP Corridor Segments and Associated Substations... 4 Table 3.1 Rock Units by Segment Table 3.2 Importance or Productivity by Segment and Rock Unit Table 4.1 Impact Significance or Sensitivity by Segment and Rock Unit Table 5.1 Applicant Proposed Measures by Segment and Rock Unit Table 5.2 Monitoring Requirements by Segment and Rock Unit Appendix Appendix A TRTP Maps PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES VI

11 Acronyms and Abbreviations ANF APM CEQA CIT CPUC FLPMA LACM LST NEPA PRC PRMP Project SBCM SCE SVP TRTP UCMP USFS United States Forest Service, Angeles National Forest Applicant Proposed Measures California Environmental Quality Act California Institute of Technology California Public Utilities Commission Federal Land Policy and Management Act Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Vertebrate Paleontology Department lattice steel tower National Environmental Policy Act Public Resource Code Paleontologic Resource Management Plan/Program Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Geological Sciences Southern California Edison Company Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project University of California Museum of Paleontology United States Forest Service PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES VII

12

13 Summary Ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of Southern California Edison Company s Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project might result in the loss of fossilized remains representing extinct species of late Tertiary to late Pleistocene (Ice Age) marine vertebrates and invertebrates, land mammals, and land plants. These losses would occur in those areas underlain by sedimentary rock units, which mostly underlie the northern and southern portions of the proposed Project area. The loss of any fossil remains, the respective fossil site, the fossil-bearing strata, associated fossil specimen data, and corresponding geologic and geographic site data would be potentially significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA). However, with Applicant Proposed Measures (APMs) incorporated into project design, particularly the paleontological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities, this impact would be less than significant. In addition to monitoring, these measures also would provide for the recovery and subsequent treatment (preparation, identification, curation, and cataloging) of fossil remains exposed by these activities, the recording of associated fossil specimen and site data, and the permanent storage of the remains and the archiving of associated data at a museum repository, where the remains and data would be available for future study by scientific investigators. Moreover, with APMs, the proposed Project would result in beneficial effects, including the exposure of fossil remains that would not have been uncovered without the Project and, therefore, would not have been available for recovery and future scientific study. The proposed Project area crosses the Angeles National Forest. If paleontologic mitigation of Project-related ground-disturbing activities on Federal land is required, the United States Forest Service might require a Paleontological Resource Special Use Permit. Approval by the California Public Utilities Commission (State lead agency) would be required to ensure compliance with CEQA. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1

14 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2

15 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Report The Southern California Edison Company (SCE, applicant) proposes to construct, operate, and maintain the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP, or Project). Paleontological resources of the TRTP corridors (including all substations, transmission lines, towers, poles, roads, pads, and other facilities) include fossil remains and their respective fossil sites, associated fossil specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data, and fossil-bearing rock units that are exposed at the surface or underlie the surface at shallow depths. These resources would be affected by Project-related ground-disturbing activities. Fossils are the remains or indications of once-living organisms and are considered a important nonrenewable scientific and educational resource. This report presents: a paleontological resource inventory of the Project corridors by segment and underlying rock unit, an assessment of the potential of each rock unit and segment to contain scientifically important fossil remains and the rock unit s corresponding sensitivity to the impacts that would accompany Project construction, and Applicant Proposed Measures (APMs) for mitigating potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level to ensure Project compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The paleontological resource inventory, impact assessment, and APMs were required by the United States Forest Service (USFS), the NEPA lead agency for the Project, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the CEQA lead agency for the Project, because of the potential for fossil remains being encountered by Projectrelated ground-disturbing activities in the proposed Project area. Such remains would be protected under NEPA, CEQA, and other legislation. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3

16 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project The proposed Project will prepare the transmission system to receive, transmit, and deliver power between the Wind Hub Substation (and associated wind farm generating facility) and user substations in Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino Counties. As such, the Project will increase the availability of renewable windgenerated energy for supplementing fossil-fuel generating capacity in southern and central California, and will improve the capacity and reliability of the existing transmission network. Project construction will include stringing of approximately 190 miles of new, replacement, and relocated overhead transmission lines, and erection of their supporting towers and poles (Table 1.1, Figure 1); the expansion, upgrading, and connection of five substations; and the construction of one new substation (e.g., Whirlwind Substation at the junction of Segments 4 and 10). Table 1.1 TRTP Corridor Segments and Associated Substations Segment Miles Substation 4 South 16.8 Whirlwind 4 North 4.0 Whirlwind Antelope Vincent Mesa 8A 33.2 Mesa 8B, 8C 13.2 Mira Loma 9:1-6 not applicable As indicated herein Whirlwind 10A, 10B Whirlwind 11 North 18.7 Gould 11 South 17.5 Mesa TOTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4

17 Figure 1. Existing and New Project Corridors PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5

18 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6

19 1.3 Project-Related Construction Activities The proposed Project includes ground-disturbing activities with a potential for encountering paleontological resources. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following activities. Construction and reestablishment of new and existing corridor tower access roads and spur roads to each of the tower pads; Construction of pads for four-legged lattice steel towers (LSTs) with four foundations extending to 30 feet or more in depth, and with one-pole foundations with 6- to 9-foot-diameter foundations extending to 35 feet or more in depth; Installation of temporary poles with 1- to 2-foot diameters and extending to at least 6 feet in depth for road and utilities protection during construction; Removal of existing foundations and excavation of borrow material for use in backfilling; Construction of laydown, assembly, pulling, and splicing areas, generally near a Project substation; and Construction of one new substation, expansion of two substations, and upgrading of three substations that would entail excavation, filling, and removal of existing facilities in and adjacent to the proposed substation sites. Most corridors, including transmission-line segments and associated substations, lie near or adjacent to existing transmission lines and substations. Consequently, many existing access roads will require only minor upgrading, although grading will be required for new spur roads and for approximately 750 tower and pole pads. 1.4 Project Alternatives Alternative routes to one segment and alternative sites to one substation site for the Project include the following: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 7

20 Segment 4 Whirlwind Substation Sites Site A: southern site Site B: northwestern site Site C: northeastern site (proposed) Segment 10 Tehachapi Foothill Transmission Routes 10 Southern Route-Lower Level 10A Middle Route-Mid Level, Aqueduct Bank 10B Northern Route-Upper Level PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 8

21 Chapter 2 Regulatory Setting 2.1 Federal Requirements Fossil remains are a limited, nonrenewable, highly sensitive, scientific resource and are afforded protection under Federal and State legislation (California Office of Historic Preservation 1983). Paleontological resources are protected under a number of Federal statues, including the Antiquities Act of 1906, NEPA, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Both the Antiquities Act and FLPMA would apply to the proposed Project because the Project corridors cross Federal land in the Angeles National Forest (ANF). Although not involving Federal funding, the corridors also cross roadways whose construction was funded by the Federal Highway Administration. The USFS, the NEPA lead agency for the Project, would ensure the implementation of any measure mitigating the impact of Project-related grounddisturbing activities on the paleontological resources of the proposed Project area where it crossed Federal land. Federal statutes with provisions protecting paleontological resources include the following acts. Antiquities Act of 1906 (P.L , 32 Stat. 225), which forbids and establishes criminal sanctions for disturbing any object of antiquity on Federal land without a permit issued by an authorizing authority. NEPA (P.L , 83 Stat. 852, 42 USC ), which mandates policies to preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage (Section 101.b4:225). 2.2 State Requirements In California, paleontological resources are protected by CEQA. Appendix G(5c) of CEQA requires that an impact be considered potentially significant if it would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. However, few fossil sites would be considered unique if the latter term were too narrowly defined (Scott and Springer 2003). For example, after the first specimen of a PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 9

22 Columbian mammoth had been found, neither the second specimen of this species nor the fossil site that yielded the specimen would be considered unique, even if the first specimen or the site that produced the specimen no longer existed. On the other hand, a fossil site is considered a cultural resource under CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] section ) and, according to Scott and Springer (2003), would be considered historically significant if it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory. Under CEQA, the CPUC, the State CEQA lead agency for the proposed Project, would ensure the implementation of any measure mitigating the impact of Projectrelated ground-disturbing activities on the paleontological resources of the Project area. Other California statutes affording protection to such resources include the following: Public Resources Code (PRC), Section (Stats. 1965, c. 1136, p. 2792), which defines any unauthorized disturbance or removal of a fossil site or remains on public land as a misdemeanor and prohibits excavation or removal of any...vertebrate paleontological site...or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Public lands are defined to include lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the State of California or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any agency thereof. 13 PRC, et seq., which requires public agencies and private interests to identify the potential adverse impacts and/or environmental consequences of their proposed Project(s) on any object or site important to the scientific annals of California (Division 1, PRC, [b]). PRC et seq., which requires the California Energy Commission to evaluate energy facility siting in unique areas of scientific concern (Section 25527). PRC, Section 30244, which requires reasonable mitigation of adverse environmental impacts that would result from development of public land and would affect paleontologic resources. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 10

23 Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, as amended March 29, 1999 (14 California Administrative Code: et seq.), which define procedures, types of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA, and include definitions of significant impacts on a fossil site (Section 15023, Appendix G [j]). Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, as amended January 1, 1999, and CEQA Guidelines Sec , which provide protection for paleontologic resources by requiring that they be identified as historical resources under CEQA and that identified impacts be mitigated. The CEQA Guidelines define historical resources broadly to include any object, site, area or place that a lead agency determines to be historically important. The regulation goes on to provide that generally, a resource will be considered historically significant if it has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory. Paleontological resources fall in this broad category, and additionally are included in the CEQA checklist under Cultural Resources. 2.3 Local (Regional Agency, County, and City) Requirements The proposed Project crosses land under the jurisdiction of a number of state, regional, and local agencies with guidelines regarding paleontological resources. The Project would follow the CPUC s CEQA guidelines and, in so doing, would ensure the implementation of any measure mitigating the impact of Project-related grounddisturbing activities on the paleontological resources of the Project area. The County of Los Angeles General Plan includes goals and policies regarding cultural resources. The General Plan is in the process of being updated. The 2004 draft of the plan update contains the following goals and policies: Goal 0.2: Adequate protective measures to preserve and enhance the County s cultural heritage resources. Policy 0.2-1: Protect cultural heritage resources, including historic, archaeological, paleontological, and unique geologic sites and important architectural structures. Such resources are identified by national and state registries and by the Los Angeles County Historical Landmarks Commission. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 11

24 Policy 0.2-2: Promote public awareness of historic sites and trails, unique geologic formations, and architecturally important structures, and encourage private owners to protect such resources. The Community Design Element of the City of Santa Clarita s 1991 General Plan contains the following: Goal 4- To continue to preserve and maintain special historical features and landmarks as focal points in the planning area. The City of Lancaster s 1994 General Plan contains he following: Objective 11.1: To identify and preserve sites of important historical and cultural value. Actions to implement this objective are contained in Policy and include: Requirements for site-specific archaeological, historical, and paleontological studies as part of the CEQA review process, and for developing and maintaining archaeological, historical, and paleontological resource maps, and Establishing educational programs related to Lancaster s cultural and historical heritage. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12

25 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Paleontological resources of the proposed Project area are contained in the rock units that: Immediately underlie the surface and extent to depths that will be encountered by Project-related ground-disturbing activities, and Previously have yielded scientifically important fossil remains in or near the Project area and, therefore, have a potential for yielding similar remains in the Project area. Fossils are the remains or indications of once-living organisms and are a very important scientific resource because of their use in: Documenting the evolution of particular groups of organisms, Reconstructing the environments in which they lived, and Determining the ages of fossil-bearing strata and of the geologic events that formed the strata. Fossil remains are found in geological contexts that include considerable scientific data regarding the depositional environments and geologic ages of the sediments comprising the fossil-bearing strata. Without such associated data, the remains would have little scientific value. Therefore, fossil remains and their geological contexts are important scientific and educational resources. 3.1 Study Methods and Procedures The following tasks were conducted to develop a baseline paleontological resource inventory of the proposed Project area by rock unit and to assess the paleontological productivity and paleontological or scientific importance of each rock unit. These assessments were based on the number or density of fossil sites and on the abundance, preservation, and types of fossil remains previously recorded from the rock unit in the Project area and vicinity. These tasks were completed in compliance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 1995) guidelines for assessing the scientific importance of the paleontological resources in an area of potential environmental effect. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 13

26 3.1.1 Stratigraphic Inventory Geologic maps (Appendix A) and reports covering the surficial geology of the Project area were reviewed to: Determine the rock units exposed in the Project corridors and at the substation sites, and Delineate their respective areal distributions in the corridors Paleontological Resource Inventory Literature Search. Published and unpublished geologic and paleontological literature was reviewed to document the number and locations of previously recorded fossil sites in and near the Project area from each rock unit that is exposed in the Project area. The types of fossil remains the rock unit has produced locally also were documented. The types of fossils documented include: Microfossils (e.g., foraminifers, diatoms, etc.), Land plants (e.g., wood, leaves, etc.), Invertebrates (e.g., snails, clams, etc.), and Vertebrates (e.g., sharks, fishes, marine and land mammals, etc.) Archival Search. The literature review was supplemented by archival searches at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Vertebrate Paleontology Department (LACM) and of the University of California Berkeley Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online database the for additional information regarding the occurrences of fossil sites and remains from these rock units in the Project area and vicinity Field Surveys. Cursory field surveys were conducted in specific areas where, based on a review of geologic mapping (Appendix A), it was determined that Project-related ground-disturbing activities would encounter fossil-bearing rock units. The areas surveyed include the western Antelope Valley and Soledad Canyon, and the Vincent Substation site. Surveying included the visual inspection of exposed strata to determine the condition of any previously recorded fossil site, to document the presence of any unrecorded fossil site, and to substantiate the presence of fine- PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 14

27 grained strata suitable for containing fossil remains Paleontological Resource Assessment Criteria Paleontological Importance. Fossil remains are considered scientifically important if they are: identifiable, complete, well preserved, age diagnostic, useful in environmental and depositional reconstruction, a type or topotypic specimen, a member of a rare species, a species that is part of a taxonomically diverse assemblage, or a skeletal element different from, or a specimen more complete than, those now available for its respective species. Identifiable fossil land mammal remains, for example, are considered scientifically important because of their potential use in providing accurate age determinations and environmental reconstructions for the rock units in which they occur. The geologic age of some fossil remains can be determined by the Carbon-14 dating technique. Moreover, land mammal remains, like those of other taxonomic groups, are comparatively rare in the fossil record Rock Unit Productivity. The potential paleontological productivity (high, moderate, low, none, undetermined) of a rock unit exposed in the Project area is based on the abundance or densities of fossil specimens or sites in exposures of the unit in and near the project area. Exposures of a specific rock unit in the project area are most likely to yield fossil remains representing particular species in quantities or densities similar to those previously recorded from the rock unit in the project area and vicinity. The criteria for establishing the potential paleontological productivity of a rock unit exposed in the project area are described below. High potential: the rock unit contains a comparatively high density of fossil sites and has yielded numerous fossil remains in the Project area and vicinity, and, therefore, likely contains additional similar remains in the Project area. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 15

28 Moderate potential: the rock unit contains a moderate density of fossil sites and has yielded some fossil remains in the Project area and vicinity, and, therefore, likely contains additional remains in the Project area. Low potential: the rock unit contains no, or a very low density of, fossil sites and has yielded very few or no fossil remains in the Project area and vicinity, and, therefore, is not likely to contain any remains in the Project area. Such rock units would include those that are very coarse grained (e.g., conglomerates) or probably are too young to contain remains old enough to be considered fossilized. Undetermined potential: the rock unit has limited exposure in the Project area and vicinity, is poorly studied, contains no known fossil site, and apparently has not yielded any fossil remains in Project area and vicinity. However, in the Project area vicinity (e.g., western Antelope Valley), the same or a correlative or lithologically similar rock unit contains a sufficient number of recorded fossil sites to suggest that the rock unit in the Project area has a high potential for containing fossil remains (note: elsewhere in California, exposures of rock units once thought to have only a low potential for containing fossil remains subsequently were demonstrated to be highly fossil bearing as a result of ground-disturbing activities associated with other construction projects). No potential: artificial fill and landslide deposits, in which any fossil remains would have been removed from their original geological contexts, and nonfossil-bearing igneous and high-grade metamorphic rock units with no potential for containing any fossil remains Rock Unit Importance. The following tasks were completed to establish the paleontological importance of each rock unit exposed in the Project area, based on the definitions presented above. The scientific importance of the fossil remains recorded from the rock unit was assessed. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 16

29 The potential paleontological productivity of the rock unit was assessed, based on the number or density of fossil sites in the unit and the number of fossil specimens it has yielded in the Project area and vicinity. The paleontological importance of the rock unit was assessed, based on its documented or potential fossil content in the Project area and vicinity. Using the definitions presented above, the paleontological or scientific importance of a rock unit exposed in the Project area was assessed using the following criteria. High importance: the rock unit has a comparatively high potential for containing unrecorded fossil sites and for yielding scientifically important fossil remains in the Project area that are similar to those previously recorded from the rock unit in the Project area and vicinity. Moderate importance: the rock unit has a comparatively moderate potential for containing unrecorded fossil sites and for yielding scientifically important fossil remains in the Project area. Low importance: the rock unit has a comparatively low potential for containing any unrecorded fossil site or for yielding any scientifically important fossil remains in the Project area. Undetermined importance: a rock unit for which too few data are available from the Project area and vicinity to allow an accurate assessment of its potential for containing any unrecorded fossil site or for yielding any scientifically important fossil remains in the Project area. No importance: artificial fill and landslide deposits, in which any fossil remains would have been removed from their original geological contexts, and non-fossil-bearing igneous and high-grade metamorphic rock units with no potential for containing any unrecorded fossil site or for yielding any fossil remains. Note, however, that any fossil site containing identifiable fossil remains and the fossil-bearing stratum would be considered paleontologically important, regardless of the overall paleontological or scientific importance of the rock unit in which the site PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 17

30 and stratum occurred. For example, a fossil-bearing layer in an otherwise non-fossilbearing rock unit might be considered scientifically highly important, even though the remainder of the rock unit was considered to be of low scientific importance. On the other hand, a fossil occurrence, such as an oyster reef, would not be considered paleontologically highly important if it consisted of abundant, widely distributed fossil remains of very low taxonomic diversity, particularly if the occurrence had been extensively sampled previously and the recovered remains accessioned into a museum collection. The paleontological importance of a rock unit exposed in the Project area is the measure most amenable to assessing the scientific importance of the paleontological resources of the Project area because the areal distribution of the rock unit can be delineated on topographic and geologic maps covering the Project area (Appendix A). 3.2 Existing Paleontological Environment Stratigraphic Inventory Regional surficial geologic mapping of the Project area and vicinity is provided by Smith (1964), Rogers (1965, 1967), Jennings (1969), and Bortugno and Spittler (1986) at a scale of 1:250,000, and by Morton (1999) and Morton and Miller (2003) at a scale of 1:100,000, while larger-scale (1:24,000) geologic mapping of the area is provided by Dibblee (1989 to 2002c) and Dibblee and Carter (2002). These sources of geologic mapping indicate that the Project corridors cross three geologic or geomorphic regions, and, as mapped by Dibblee (1989 to 2002c) and Dibblee and Carter (2002), four general geologic units, including pre-tertiary igneous and metamorphic rock units; a folded and consolidated, continental rock unit of late Tertiary age; folded and consolidated, dominantly marine rock units of late Tertiary age; and flat-lying and comparatively unconsolidated, dominantly alluvial and fluvial rock units of Quaternary age (Appendix A). An inventory of the rock units exposed in the Project area is presented by corridor segment in Table 3.1. The Project segments have been transcribed onto the 7.5-minute geologic maps by Dibblee (1989 to 2002c) and Dibblee and Carter (2002), where available, and, when not available, onto the 2- degree geologic maps by Smith (1964), Rogers (1967), and Jennings (1969). These maps are provided in Appendix A. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 18

31 Table Rock Units By Segment SEGMENT ROCK UNIT A-C 10, 10A-B 11 Younger Alluvium X X X X X X Older Alluvium X X X X X X X Anaverde Formation X Fernando Formation X X X Upper ( Pico ) Member X X X Lower ( Repetto ) Member Sycamore Canyon Formation Monterey Formation Yorba Shale Member Soquel Sandstone Member La Vida Shale Member Igneous/Metamorphic Rock Units X X X X X X X X X X X Geologic mapping indicates that, where the Project corridors cross the three geologic regions, the following rock units are crossed by the corridor segments (Appendix A). In the western Antelope Valley (Segments 4 and 10 and northern portion of Segment 5), the Project area is underlain mostly by Quaternary alluvial rock units, with Holocene Younger alluvium underlying the valley floor and Pleistocene Older Alluvium mantling the lower slopes of Antelopes Buttes and of the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountains, which border the valley; and with metamorphic rocks and a late Tertiary, continental rock unit occurring along the southern margin of the western Antelope Valley at Portal Ridge and in Leona Valley, respectively, and granitic rocks occurring at Antelope Buttes; In the San Gabriel Mountains (Segment 6, southern portion of Segment 5, and northern portion of Segment 11), the Project area is underlain mostly by igneous and metamorphic rocks, with Quaternary alluvial rock units occurring PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 19

32 along the major drainages, where they underlie the valley and canyon floors; and In the San Gabriel and Chino Valleys and the Puente, Chino, and Montebello Hills (Segments 7 and 8 and southern portion of Segment 11), the Project area is underlain mostly by Quaternary alluvial rock units (Older and Younger Alluvium) that mantle the lower slopes of the mountains and hills, with Younger Alluvium (including fluvial or stream channel deposits) underlying the valley floors and, in the Puente and Chino Hills, the canyon floors; and by late Tertiary, dominantly marine rock units, which form the hills Paleontological Resource Inventory and Assessment by Rock Unit A paleontologic resource inventory of each rock units exposed in the Project area, as well as an assessment of the paleontologic importance or potential productivity of each rock unit, is presented below by segment and subsegment. This information is summarized by segment in Table 3.2. Paleontologic resource inventories and assessments of the rock units exposed in the Project area are discussed below in order of decreasing geologic age and increasing stratigraphic position, and the geographic distribution of each rock unit is depicted on the geologic maps of the Project area provided in Appendix A. Abbreviations or map designations for the rock units portrayed on the geologic maps also are provided below. Some rock units of no paleontologic importance are identified on the maps as: gr, gn, etc. Igneous and metamorphic rock units, Qls Quaternary landslide deposits (not discussed below), and af historic artificial fill (not discussed below) Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks (gr, gn, etc.). Igneous and metamorphic rock units include granitic or plutonic rocks, which formed from a molten state deep in the Earth s crust, and metamorphic rocks, which were altered by the very high temperatures and pressures that accompanied burial deep in the crust. These rock units underlie roughly 40 percent of the proposed Project area and occur at Antelope Buttes, Portal Ridge, and in most of the San Gabriel Mountains (Dibblee 1989, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001c, 2002a, 2002b, Dibblee and Carter 2002). Because of their modes PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 20

33 of origin, both rock units are non-fossil bearing and, therefore, of no paleontologic importance. Segment and Sub-Segment Table 3.2 Importance or Productivity by Segment and Rock Unit Igneous and Metamorphic Rock Units Importance or Productivity/Rock Unit Tertiary Rock Units Older Alluvium Younger Alluvium 4 None a Not Present b Low/Undetermined c Low/Undetermined d 5 None High Low-High Low/Undetermined 6 None Not Present Low Low 7 None Undet. Low/Undetermined Low/Undetermined 8A, B, C Not Present Undet. e /High Undetermined/High Low-High 9, Whirlwind Substation 9, Antelope Substation 9, Vincent Substation 9, Mesa Substation 9, Mira Loma Substation 9, Gould Substation Not Present Not Present Low/Undetermined Low/Undetermined Not Present Not Present Not Present Low/Undetermined Not Present Not Present Low Not Present Not Present Undet. Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Low/High None Not Present Not Present Not Present 10, 10A, B Not Present Not Present Low/Undetermined Low/Undetermined 11 North None Not Present Low Low 11 South None Undet./High Low/Undetermined Low/Undetermined a None indicates that the rock unit is present, but has no important resource. b Not Present indicates that the unit is not exposed in segment. c Locally productive in areas where rock unit is fine grained, and of low importance where coarse grained. d Locally productive in areas where rock unit is fine grained and at depths greater than 5 feet below present ground surface. e Undet. = Undetermined. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 21

34 Tertiary Rock Units. In order of decreasing geologic age and increasing stratigraphic position, the late Tertiary rock units underlying the corridors and substations in the Montebello, Puente, and Chino Hills include the following formations (Appendix A). The Monterey Formation, The Sycamore Canyon Formation, and The Fernando Formation. The Anaverde Formation occurs in the Mojave Desert along the southern margin of the western Antelope Valley in Leona Valley Anaverde Formation (Tac). Along the San Andreas Fault in the central portion of Segment 5 at the southern margin of the western Antelope Valley, the Upper or Clay Shale Member of the continental Anaverde Formation has yielded fossilized leaves representing a taxonomically diverse floral assemblage consisting of twenty-one extinct species of late Miocene land plants (Axelrod 1950). The species represented include pine, palm, poplar, willow, oak, avocado, sycamore, sumac, and California lilac (Axelrod 1950). The leaves from the Anaverde Formation are scientifically highly important because their respective species have allowed the paleoenvironmental and paleoclimatic reconstructions of the western Antelope Valley and vicinity during the late Miocene Epoch. These occurrences indicate that there is a high potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered by ground-disturbing activities where the Project area is underlain by the Upper Member. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might represent new species or species previously not recorded from the Anaverde Formation. For these reasons, the Upper Member of the Anaverde Formation is considered paleontologically highly important Monterey Formation. In the Puente Hills and Chino Hills, the marine Monterey Formation consists of three members, as mapped by Dibblee (1999, 2001a, 2001b). In order of decreasing geologic age and increasing stratigraphic position, these units include the following members (Appendix A). The La Vida Shale Member (Tmlv), The Soquel Sandstone Member (Tms, Tmss), and The Yorba Shale Member (Tmy), PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 22

35 Where the Soquel Sandstone Member is not present, the La Vida and Yorba Shale Members are not differentiated and are designated as Tm by Dibblee (2001a, 2001b). The Monterey Formation underlies more than 6 miles of Segment 8 in the Puente and Chino Hills. La Vida Shale Member (Tmlv). In the Puente and Chino Hills, the La Vida Shale Member has yielded the tests of marine microfossils (benthic foraminifers) of the late Miocene, lower Mohnian Stage, and fossilized fish scales (Durham and Yerkes 1964, Yerkes 1972). In the northern Santa Ana Mountains, the member has yielded marine microfossils; the fossilized remains of extinct species of marine algae, clams, crabs, fishes, sharks, and mammals (whales, desmostylids); and the fossilized wood and leaves of land plants (Lander 2003). These occurrences indicate that there is a high potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered by ground-disturbing activities where the Project area is underlain by the La Vida Shale Member. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might represent new species or species previously not recorded from the member. For these reasons, the La Vida Shale Member is considered paleontologically highly important. Soquel Sandstone Member (Tms, Tmss). The Soquel Sandstone Member has yielded the tests of marine microfossil (benthic foraminiferal) species of the late Miocene, upper Mohnian Stage; fossilized coral remains; fragments of mollusk shells and marine vertebrate bones; and shark teeth and fish scales in the Chino Hills (Daviess and Woodford 1949, Durham and Yerkes 1964). In the Chino Hills at Laband Village, the member yielded fossilized remains representing at least fourteen species of marine and land plants and marine mollusks and vertebrates, including fishes and mammals, and additional such remains representing 19 species were recovered from the transitional zone between the Soquel Sandstone and Yorba Shale Members (Wagner 1989). LACM localities 7503 and 6337, also in the Chino Hills, yielded fossil fish and porpoise remains, 0.2 and 1.4 miles, respectively, from Segment 8, and fish and baleen whale remains were recovered at additional LACM fossil sites in the area. These occurrences indicate that there is a high potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered by ground-disturbing activities where the Project area is underlain by the Soquel Sandstone Member. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 23

36 Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might represent new species or species previously not recorded from the member. For these reasons, the Soquel Sandstone Member is considered paleontologically highly important. Yorba Shale Member (Tmy). The Yorba Shale Member has yielded the tests of marine microfossil (benthic foraminiferal) species of the late Miocene, upper Mohnian Stage in the Chino Hills (Durham and Yerkes 1964). Saul and Stadum (2005) reported the very rare, fossil remains of the paper nautilus from the member at Laband Village in the Chino Hills. Wagner (1989) reported the occurrence of fossil remains representing 50 species of marine algae, land plants, and marine invertebrates and vertebrates at Laband Village. The benthic foraminiferal species from Laband Village are characteristic of the late Miocene to early Pliocene lower Delmontian Stage, an age assignment that is slightly younger than previously reported for the Yorba Shale Member (Wagner 1989). LACM localities in the Puente, Chino, and San Jose Hills have yielded the fossilized remains of sharks, fishes, and whales, seven of these sites occurring between 1.1 and 1.6 miles of Segment 8. These occurrences indicate that there is a high potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered by ground-disturbing activities where the Project area is underlain by the Yorba Shale Member. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might represent new species or species previously not recorded from the member, and might be useful in corroborating the member s local Delmontian age assignment. For these reasons, the Yorba Shale Member is considered paleontologically highly important Sycamore Canyon Formation (Tsc, Tscc, Tscg, Tscs). The Sycamore Canyon Formation has yielded the tests of marine microfossil (benthic foraminiferal) species of the late Miocene to early Pliocene, upper Mohnian and lower Delmontian Stages in the Chino Hills (Durham and Yerkes 1964). Reynolds and others (1985) reported fossilized remains representing over 40 species, including marine and land plants, sea turtles, sharks, marine fishes, birds, and baleen whales, from a number of SBCM localities in this formation at the Robert O. Townsend Junior High School site in the Chino Hills. Two LACM localities in the Puente Hills near Segment 8 yielded specimens representing six species of marine snails, clams, crabs, and echinoids, as well as fossil baleen whale remains from the formation (Lander 1997). Numerous LACM fossil localities (LACM 6307 to 6336) 1.8 to 2.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 24

37 miles from Segment 8 yielded the fossilized remains of sharks, fishes, porpoises, toothed and baleen whales, and sea lions. These occurrences indicate that there is a high potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered by ground-disturbing activities where the Project area is underlain by the Sycamore Canyon Formation. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might represent new species or species previously not recorded from the formation. For these reasons, the Sycamore Canyon Formation is considered paleontologically highly important Fernando Formation (Tf, Tfp, Tfps, Tfr, Tfs, Tfsc). The Fernando Formation in the Puente and Chino Hills was divided into two members, including the Lower or Repetto Member and the Upper or Pico Member, by Durham and Yerkes (1964) and Yerkes (1972). As mapped by Dibblee (1999, 2001a, 2001b), however, the formation consists of several additional units or facies. In order of decreasing geologic age and increasing stratigraphic position, the formation, as recognized by Dibblee (1999, 2001a, 2001b), includes the following units (Appendix A). The Siltstone to Claystone Facies (Tf), The Repetto Claystone Member (Tfr), The Sandstone Facies (Tfs), The Pico Claystone and Sandstone Facies (Tfp) The Pico Silty Sandstone Facies (Tfps), and The Sandstone and Conglomerate Facies (Tfsc). Lower ( Repetto ) Member (Tfr). The Lower Member of the Fernando Formation has yielded the fossilized remains of Pliocene marine snails, clams, and brachiopods (lamp shells) at a fossil sites in the Chino Hills (Durham and Yerkes 1964). Lander (1997) reported similar fossil remains from 28 new sites in the Lower Member in the Puente Hills. The remains from the latter sites represent marine microfossils, three genera of land plants, forty species of marine invertebrates, including snails, clams, barnacles, crabs, and sand dollars and heart urchins; sharks; at least eight species of marine fishes; and baleen whales. These occurrences indicate that there is a high potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered by ground-disturbing PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 25

38 activities where the Project area is underlain by the Lower Member of the Fernando Formation. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might represent new species or species previously not recorded from the member. For these reasons, the Lower Member is considered paleontologically highly important. Upper ( Pico ) Member (Tfp, Tfps). The Upper Member of the Fernando Formation has yielded remains representing approximately 50 species of marine invertebrates, including snails, clams, scaphopods (tusk shells), and sand dollars, at 40 fossil sites in the Chino Hills (Durham and Yerkes 1964, Yerkes 1972). Whale remains were found in the Puente Hills approximately 1 mile from Segments 7 and 8. Lander (1997) reported fossil snail shells from a site in the Upper Member in the Puente Hills. These occurrences indicate that there is a high potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered by ground-disturbing activities where the Project area is underlain by the Upper Member of the Fernando Formation. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might represent new species or species previously not recorded from the member. For these reasons, the Upper Member is considered paleontologically highly important. Continental strata (unit Tfsc) at the top of the Fernando Formation have yielded the fossilized remains of a horse at LACM locality 3363 in Monterey Park (Jefferson 1991). In part because of the limited areal extent of this unit, the latter occurrence indicates that there is an undetermined (but probably no more than a moderate) potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered locally by ground-disturbing activities in the Montebello Hills, where Segments 7, 8, and 11 and the Mesa Substation site are underlain by unit Tfsc of the Upper Member Older Alluvium. The Project area crosses a number of laterally equivalent, continental facies of Pleistocene age that are assigned to the Older Alluvium in this report. These facies consist of comparatively dissected, flat-lying to slightly tilted, and semiconsolidated strata that are dominantly alluvial and fluvial in origin. Where geologic map coverage of the Project area has been provided by Dibblee (1989 to 2002c) on 7.5-minute quadrangles, these facies are included in Older Dissected Surficial Sediments and, in turn, include the following units (Appendix A). PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 26

39 Elevated Dissected Remnants of Alluvial Gravel, Sand, and Silt, and Dissected Alluvial Gravel and Sand of Valleys (Qoa), Alluvial Fan Gravel and Sand (Qof), Elevated Remnants of Alluvial Gravel and Sand (Qog), Alluvial Fan Gravel and Sand (Qos), and Slightly Elevated and Dissected Alluvial Gravel and Sand (Qae). Where geologic mapping of the Project area is not provided by Dibblee (1989 to 2002c), these facies include the following rock unit, as mapped by Smith (1964), Rogers (1967), and Jennings (1969) on the Bakersfield, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino 2-degree sheets (Appendix A): Pleistocene Nonmarine Sedimentary Deposits (Qc). Older Alluvium mantles the lower slopes of Antelopes Buttes and of the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountains, which border the western Antelopes Valley; occurs along major drainages in the San Gabriel Mountains, where it underlies the valley and canyon floors; mantles the lower slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains, which border the northern San Gabriel Valley, and the Montebello, Puente, and Chino Hills, and occurs in the Montebello Hills (Appendix A). In these areas, the Older Alluvium usually occurs as alluvial fans or elevated terraces that lie above and adjacent to the Younger Alluvium. Along the San Andreas Fault at the southern margin of the western Antelope Valley, the Older Alluvium includes the Harold Formation of Noble (1953). Several fossil sites (California Institute of Technology [CIT] 399 = LACM 5761 = San Bernardino County Museum [SBCM] = University of California, Riverside, locality RV- 7618, CIT 451, 589) in the Harold Formation (units Qoa and Qos of Dibblee 2001c) occur 4.6 to 5.5 miles northeast of Segment 5 near Barrel Springs. These sites yielded fossilized bones and teeth representing a taxonomically diverse faunal assemblage that includes mostly extinct species of Pleistocene land mammals. These species include a jackrabbit, a cottontail, a deermouse, the California vole, a harvest mouse, possibly the dire wolf, the American mastodon, a mammoth, possibly the western horse, and the western camel (Noble 1953, Reynolds 1989). Presumably based on the presence of the packrat a packrat Neotoma (Teanopus) prefuscipes, Repenning (1987) and Reynolds (1989) considered the assemblages from the Harold Formation to be late Irvingtonian (early Pleistocene) and approximately 800,000 years in age. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 27

40 The remains from the Harold Formation are scientifically highly important because of their taxonomic diversity and, particularly with regard to those of the packrat, have allowed the determination of the age of the formation. These occurrences indicate that there is a high potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered locally by ground-disturbing activities in the western Antelope Valley (Segment 5) where the Project area is underlain by the Harold Formation (units Qoa and Qos of Older Alluvium). Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might represent new species or species previously not recorded from the formation. For these reasons, the Older Alluvium is considered paleontologically highly important locally. A fossil site in the Older Alluvium (unit Qoa of Dibblee 2002c) of the San Gabriel Valley just north of the San Jose Hills in San Dimas yielded the fossilized bones and teeth of a Pleistocene mammoth (Eckis 1928, Clarke 1979), whereas UCMP locality V yielded Pleistocene ground sloth remains in West Covina (Jefferson 1991). The occurrence of only two recorded fossil site near the Project area suggests that there is an undetermined (but probably no more than a moderate) potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered locally by ground-disturbing activities in the San Gabriel Valley (Segments 7, 8, and 11) where the Project area is underlain by unit Qoa. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might represent new geographic range extensions for their respective species. For these reasons, unit Qoa of the Older Alluvium is considered to be of undetermined (but no than moderate) paleontologic importance locally. On the other hand, adjacent to exposures of granitic and metamorphic (basement) rocks in the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountains and at Antelope Buttes, the Older Alluvium probably is too coarse grained to contain identifiable fossil remains. Any such remains would have been destroyed or heavily damaged by deposition of the cobbles and boulders that comprise this rock unit adjacent to exposures of basement rocks. In these areas, there probably is no more than a low potential for any identifiable and, therefore, scientifically important fossil remains being encountered locally by ground-disturbing activities where the Project area is underlain by Older Alluvium. In other parts of the Project area where the Older Alluvium is comparatively fine grained but is not known to have yielded any fossil remains, there is an undetermined (but probably only a low to moderate) potential for scientifically important fossil PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 28

41 remains being encountered locally by ground-disturbing activities where the Project area is underlain by Older Alluvium Younger Alluvium. The Project area crosses a number of laterally equivalent, continental facies of Holocene age that are assigned to the Younger Alluvium in this report. These facies consist of comparatively undissected, flat-lying, and unconsolidated strata of dominantly alluvial and fluvial origin. Where geologic map coverage of the Project area has been provided by Dibblee (1989 to 2002c) on 7.5-minute quadrangles, these facies are included in Surficial Sediments and, in turn, include the following units (Appendix A). Alluvial Gravel, Sand, Silt, and Clay of Valleys and Floodplains (Qa), and Alluvial Gravel, Sand, and Silt of Valleys, Canyons, and Floodplains; Gravel and Sand of Major Stream Channels; and Fan Outwash from Major Canyons (Qg). Where geologic mapping of the Project area is not provided by Dibblee (1989 to 2002c), these facies include the following rock unit, as mapped by Smith (1964), Rogers (1967), and Jennings (1969) on the Bakersfield, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino 2-degree sheets (Appendix A): Recent [Holocene] Alluvium (Qal). Younger Alluvium underlies the floors of the western Antelope, San Gabriel, and Chino Valleys, and occurs along major drainages in the San Gabriel Mountains and the Puente and Chino Hills, where it underlies the lower and more central portions of the valley and canyon floors (Appendix A). In these areas, the Younger Alluvium usually occurs below and basinward relative to the adjacent Older Alluvium. At and very near the surface (e.g., less than 3 to 5 feet below present ground surface), the Younger Alluvium probably is too young to contain remains old enough to be considered fossilized. Correspondingly, there probably is only a low potential for scientifically important fossil remains being encountered by very shallow grounddisturbing activities in the Antelope, San Gabriel, and Chino Valleys where the Project area is underlain by Younger Alluvium. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 29

42 A number SBCM fossil sites (SBCM localities to ) reported by Reynolds and Reynolds (1991) from the western Antelope Valley yielded the fossilized bones and teeth of late Pleistocene continental vertebrate species, including fresh-water fishes, lizards, snakes, rabbits, rodents, carnivores, and horses. However, these localities all occur in sediments of ancient Lake Thompson (includes Rosamond Lake) and below an elevation of 2,325 feet (Reynolds and Reynolds 1991). Consequently, these sites are below the lowest elevation of the Project area in the western Antelope Valley. Several other localities in the Antelope Valley at elevations above 2,325 feet have yielded remains from 0 to 10 feet below the surface at General William J. Fox Airfield and at LACM localities 5946 and 5947 east of Little Rock Wash (Lander 2004 and references cited therein, 2005). The remains represent a leopard lizard, gopher, and a large land mammal, and are of Holocene or late Pleistocene age. These latter occurrences indicate that there is an undetermined (but probably no more than a moderate) potential for additional, similar, scientifically important fossil remains being encountered locally by ground-disturbing activities in in the western Antelope Valley (Segments 4, 5, and 10) where the Project area is underlain by Younger Alluvium. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might allow a more definitive determination regarding the geologic age of the Younger Alluvium above an elevation of 2,325 feet. For these reasons, the Younger Alluvium in the western Antelope Valley is considered to be of undetermined (but probably no more than moderate) paleontologic importance locally. Unit Qa of the Younger Alluvium yielded late Pleistocene mammoth remains at LACM locality 2027 in Pasadena, whereas mammoth remains were recovered from this unit at CIT locality 342 in Eagle Rock (Miller 1971, Jefferson 1991). At least some of the LACM fossil sites recorded by Miller (1971) and Jefferson (1991) from the downtown Los Angeles area are in areas immediately underlain by the same unit, but were encountered at depths at least 5 feet below the previous ground surface (Lander 2000). These sites yielded fossilized bones and teeth of late Pleistocene land mammal species. The latter occurrences indicate that there is an undetermined (but probably no more than a moderate) potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered locally by ground-disturbing activities in the San Gabriel Valley (Segments 7, 8, and 11) where the Project area is underlain by unit Qa. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might allow more definitive determinations regarding the geologic ages of the Younger Alluvium at specific depths below the present ground surface. For these reasons, unit PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 30

43 Qa of the Younger Alluvium in the San Gabriel Valley is considered to be of undetermined (but probably no more than moderate) importance locally. Otherwise unidentifiable plant remains have been recovered from rip-up clasts in unit Qg of the Younger Alluvium along the Los Angeles River at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles (Lander 2000), and Pleistocene mastodon remains were recovered at an unspecified depth in the Manning Pit in Irwindale (Jefferson 1991), 2.7 miles from Segment 7. Because it is from a fossil site in close proximity to the Project area, the latter occurrence suggests that there is a moderate (but possibly no more than a low) potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered locally by ground-disturbing activities in the San Gabriel Valley (Segments 7, 8, and 11) where the Project area is underlain by unit Qg. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might allow more definitive determinations regarding the geologic ages of the Younger Alluvium at specific depths below the present ground surface. For these reasons, unit Qg of the Younger Alluvium in the San Gabriel Valley is considered to be of undetermined (but possibly no more than low) importance locally. In the Puente and Chino Hills, Segment 8 crosses canyons whose floors are underlain by unit Qa of the Younger Alluvium. This rock unit yielded the fossilized remains of a late Pleistocene bison at SBCM locality in Tonner Canyon (Jefferson 1991). Jefferson (1991) reports an additional occurrence of a bison from the Puente Hills. The latter specimen probably is from unit Qa. In part because of the limited areal extent of this unit, the latter occurrences, particularly the former of the two, indicate that there is an undetermined (but possibly high) potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered locally by grounddisturbing activities in the Chino and Puente Hills (Segment 8) where the Project area is underlain by unit Qa of the Younger Alluvium. Moreover, there is a potential that some of the remains might allow more definitive determinations regarding the geologic ages of the Younger Alluvium at specific depths below the present ground surface. For these reasons, unit Qa of the Younger Alluvium in the Puente and Chino Hills is considered to be of undetermined (but possibly high) importance locally. Near the eastern end of Segment 8 in the Chino Valley, unit Qa yielded late Pleistocene ground sloth and camel remains less than 1.5 miles from the Segment 8 at SBCM localities and and depths 11 to 15 feet below the present ground surface in Chino, and mammoth remains at SBCM locality near Champagne and PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 31

44 a depth of 5 feet (Reynolds 1991), less than 2 miles from the Segment 8 terminus. Numerous other localities, mostly unpublished, occur in the Chino Valley and have yielded additional remains representing a taxonomic diversity of late Pleistocene land mammal species. Some of these remains were recovered at depths of only about 3 feet. The remains from unit Qa in the Chino Valley are scientifically highly important because of their taxonomic diversity and because they have demonstrated that Pleistocene land mammal remains can occur at very shallow depths in areas underlain by younger alluvium. These occurrences indicate that there is a high potential for additional, similar, scientifically highly important fossil remains being encountered locally by ground-disturbing activities in the Chino Valley (Segment 8) where the Project area is underlain by unit Qa of the Younger Alluvium. For this reason, unit Qa of the Younger Alluvium is considered paleontologically highly important locally. On the other hand, adjacent to exposures of granitic and metamorphic (basement) rocks in the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountains and at Antelope Buttes, units Qa and Qg of the Younger Alluvium probably are too coarse grained to contain identifiable fossil remains. Any such remains would have been destroyed or heavily damaged by deposition of the cobbles and boulders that comprise these units adjacent to exposures of basement rocks. In these areas, there probably is no more than a low potential for any scientifically important fossil remains being encountered locally by ground-disturbing activities where the Project area is underlain by units Qa and Qg of the Younger Alluvium. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 32

45 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4.1 Paleontological Resources of the Proposed Project Area Paleontological resources of the proposed Project area include an undetermined number of fossil remains and unrecorded fossil sites, associated fossil specimen data, corresponding geologic and geographic site data, and the fossil-bearing rock units, all of which might be adversely affected by (i.e., would be sensitive to) the permanent direct and indirect impacts resulting from Project-related ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction. The following tasks were conducted in compliance with SVP (1995) guidelines for assessing the significance of construction-related impacts on various levels of importance for paleontological resources, or the paleontological sensitivity of a particular rock unit to such impacts. The significance (high, moderate, low, none, undetermined) of the potential impact of Project-related ground-disturbing activities on the paleontological resources of each rock unit exposed in the proposed Project area (or the impact sensitivities of these resources) was assessed and reflects the paleontological or scientific importance of the rock unit, which, in turn, primarily reflects the potential for fossil sites and remains being encountered in the rock unit by these ground-disturbing activities. Any impact on a fossil specimen, the fossil site, and the fossil-bearing rock unit would be considered significant paleontologically, regardless of the paleontological importance of the rock unit in which the site and rock unit occur. For example, excavation in an area underlain by a rock unit of low importance would have only a low potential for the disturbance of fossil remains and sites (i.e., the rock unit would be of low sensitivity with regard to such impacts). Therefore, even though the accompanying loss of any fossil remains or site would be a significant impact paleontologically, the impact of excavation would be considered to be of low significance because of the low potential for the loss of any fossil remains. This method of impact assessment is most appropriate for a paleontological resource investigation of the Project area because discrete levels of paleontological impact sensitivity or significance can be delineated on a topographic or geologic map of the Project area. A paleontological resource impact sensitivity assessment of the Project area is presented below and is based on the geologic maps of the Project area provided in Appendix A. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 33

46 4.2 Permanent Construction-Phase Impacts Direct construction-phase impacts on the paleontological resources of the Project area would result mostly from Project-related ground-disturbing activities (particularly excavation, boring, and trenching) in previously undisturbed strata. Although such activities would end with construction, they would make the rock units and their resources permanently unavailable for future scientific investigation. Without mitigation, the resulting loss of any fossil remains or site, associated specimen and site data, and the fossil-bearing strata would be a significant impact. Similarly, burial of any fossil remains or site and the fossil-bearing strata, or covering them with construction also would make them unavailable for future study and would be another significant impact. Indirect permanent impacts would arise from unauthorized fossil collecting by construction personnel, rock hounds, and amateur and commercial fossil collectors, who would have easier access to exposures of fossil-bearing strata as a result of Project-related construction activities. Although unauthorized and uncontrolled access and fossil collecting would be only temporary, such collecting would result in the permanent loss of fossil remains and sites and associated specimen and site data. These losses also would be a significant impact Project-Related Construction Activities Impacts would arise from the Project-related ground-disturbing activities that are summarized below. Grading of existing access and spur roads, and for new access and spur roads, Grading of existing tower and pole pads, and for new tower and pole pads, Auguring for tower and pole foundations, Trenching for undergrounding cables, Cutting and filling for new and expanded substations, Excavation for grounding grids and drainage ditches and culverts, and Excavation for concrete pads, slabs, and foundations at substation sites. Construction-related ground-disturbing activities will vary considerably, based on the final design and locations of overhead transmission lines, towers, and poles. Current PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 34

47 design plans include the following major elements: One new substation (proposed and two alternative Whirlwind Substation sites), Expansion of Antelope and Vincent Substations, Upgrades without expansion of Gould, Mesa, and Mira Loma Substations, and Installation of new transmission lines in seven numbered segments (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 North, and 11 South) totaling about 190 miles and including at least 500 towers and poles, along with line replacements and conversions. An assessment of the significance of the impacts on paleontological resources that would arise from these ground-disturbing activities (or of the impact sensitivities of the rock units) is presented by rock unit and segment and subsegment in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 reflects the current Project description (as of April 25, 2007) and includes only the stringing of new cables on existing towers in Segment 11 South between Gould and Mesa Substations, with excavation for a few tower foundations near the substations and minor excavation for guard poles and pulling/tensioning blocks. In areas underlain by younger alluvium, major excavation for LSTs or poles would probably increase impact significance from Low to High (see below). The significance of impacts arising from Project-related ground-disturbing activities has been assessed with regard to the four major groups of rock units, including: Igneous and metamorphic rock units at Antelope Buttes and Portal Ridge in the western Antelope Valley and in the San Gabriel Mountains, The Miocene continental Anaverde Formation in Leona Valley along the southern margin of the western Antelope Valley, The Miocene to Pliocene, dominantly marine Monterey, Sycamore Canyon, and Fernando Formations of the Montebello, Puente, and Chino Hills, and Pleistocene Older Alluvium and Pleistocene to Holocene Younger Alluvium in the western Antelope Valley, along the major drainages in the San Gabriel Mountains and in the Montebello, Puente, and Chino Hills, and in the San and Gabriel and Chino Valleys (Appendix A). PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 35

48 Segment and Sub-Segment Table 4.1 Impact Significance or Sensitivity by Segment and Rock Unit Igneous and Metamorphic Rock Units Significance or Sensitivity/Rock Unit Tertiary Rock Units Older Alluvium Younger Alluvium 4 None a Not Present b Low/Undetermined c Low/Undetermined d 5 None High Low-High Low/Undetermined 6 None Not Present Low Low 7 None Undet. Low/Undetermined Low/Undetermined 8A, B, C Not Present Undet. e /High Undetermined/High Low-High 9, Whirlwind Substation 9, Antelope Substation 9, Vincent Substation 9, Mesa Substation 9, Mira Loma Substation 9, Gould Substation Not Present Not Present Low/Undetermined Low/Undetermined Not Present Not Present Not Present Low/Undetermined Not Present Not Present Low Not Present Not Present Undet. Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Not Present Low/High None Not Present Not Present Not Present 10, 10A, B Not Present Not Present Low/Undetermined Low/Undetermined 11 North None Not Present Low Low 11 South None Undet./High Low/Undetermined Low/Undetermined a None indicates that the rock unit is present, but has no sensitive resource. b Not Present indicates that the unit is not exposed in segment. c Locally sensitive in areas where rock unit is fine grained, and of low sensitivity where coarse grained. d Locally sensitive in areas where rock unit is fine grained and at depths greater than 5 feet below present ground surface. e Undet. = Undetermined. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 36

49 General discussions of the potential impacts on paleontologic resources that would result from Project-related ground-disturbing activities are presented below for each of these groups of rock units Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks No impact on paleontological resources would result from Project-related grounddisturbing activities in the non-fossil-bearing igneous and metamorphic rock units, which, because of their modes of origin deep in the earth s crust, are non-fossil bearing. A small remnant of granitic rock is exposed at Antelope Buttes in Segment 4, whereas larger exposures of metamorphic rock occur in Segment 5 at Portal Ridge, and granitic and metamorphic rocks are extensively exposed throughout the San Gabriel Mountains in Segments 5, 6, 7, and Tertiary Rock Units With one exception, any impact on paleontological resources as a result of Projectrelated ground-disturbing activities in those parts of the Project area underlain by the Tertiary marine and continental rock units would be highly significant because of the high potential for scientifically important fossil remains being disturbed by these activities. The continental Anaverde Formation occurs in the central portion of Segment 5 along the San Andreas Fault at the southern margin of the western Antelope Valley in Leona Valley, whereas the marine Monterey and Sycamore Canyon Formations and the dominantly marine Fernando Formation underlie the Montebello, Puente, and Chino Hills at the southern ends of Segments 7 and 11 and in almost all but the eastern end of Segment 8 (Appendix A). On the other hand, any impact on the continental strata (unit Tfsc) that occur at the top of the Fernando Formation in the Montebello Hills at the southern ends of Segments 7 and 11, at the western end of Segment 8, and at the Mesa Substation site would be of undetermined significance Older Alluvium Any impact on paleontological resources of units Qoa and Qos of the Older Alluvium as a result of Project-related ground-disturbing activities along the San Andreas Fault at the southern margin of the western Antelope Valley would be highly significant locally because of the high potential for scientifically important fossil remains being PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 37

50 disturbed by these activities. Similarly, any impact on paleontological resources of unit Qoa of the Older Alluvium as a result of Project-related ground-disturbing activities on the floor of the San Gabriel Valley probably would be of undetermined significance locally because there probably would be an undetermined potential for scientifically important fossil remains being disturbed by these activities. On the other hand, adjacent to exposures of granitic and metamorphic (basement) rocks in the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountains and at Antelope Buttes, the Older Alluvium probably is too coarse grained to contain identifiable fossil remains. Consequently, impacts on paleontological resources as a result of Project-related ground-disturbing activities probably would be of only low significance locally because there probably would be no more than a low potential for scientifically important fossil remains being disturbed by these activities in the Older Alluvium near exposures of basement rocks. In other parts of the Project area, the Older Alluvium is comparatively fine grained, but is not known to have yielded any fossil remains. Therefore, impacts on paleontological resources as a result of Project-related ground-disturbing activities probably would be of undetermined (but probably only of low to moderate) significance locally because there would be an undetermined potential for scientifically important fossil remains being disturbed by these activities in the Older Alluvium Younger Alluvium Any impact on paleontological resources of the Younger Alluvium as a result of Project-related ground-disturbing activities at depths less than 3 to 5 feet below the present ground surface in the western Antelope Valley, the San Gabriel and Chino Valleys, and the Puente and Chino Hills probably would be of low significance because there probably would be no more than a low potential for any remains old enough to be considered fossilized being disturbed by these activities. On the other hand, any impact on paleontological resources of units Qa and Qg of the Younger Alluvium as a result of such ground-disturbing activities in the western Antelope Valley and the San Gabriel Valley at depths greater than 5 feet below the PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 38

51 present ground surface would be of undetermined significance locally because of the undetermined potential for scientifically important fossil remains being disturbed by these activities. On the other hand, these impacts would be considered highly significant at depths only 3 feet below the present ground surface in the Chino Valley, which is underlain locally by unit Qa. Adjacent to exposures of granitic and metamorphic (basement) rocks in the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountains and at Antelope Buttes, units Qa and Qg probably are too coarse grained to contain identifiable fossil remains. Consequently, impacts on paleontological resources as a result of Project-related ground-disturbing activities probably would be of only low significance locally because there probably would be no more than a low potential for scientifically important fossil remains being disturbed by these activities in units Qa and Qg of the Younger Alluvium near exposures of basement rocks. 4.3 Temporary Construction-Phase Impacts Although Project-related construction activities would be temporary and would end with construction, these temporary activities would result in permanent impacts on the paleontological resources of the Project area. Similarly, indirect construction impacts might lead to additional losses of paleontologic resources as a result of unauthorized fossil collecting by construction personnel, rock hounds, and amateur and commercial fossil collectors, who would be afforded easier access to exposures of fossil-bearing rock units by the presence of access and spur roads in the corridors. Without mitigation, any impact that resulted in the loss of fossil remains, fossil sites, associated specimen data, corresponding geologic and geographic site data, and the fossil-bearing strata would be permanent and, therefore, significant. 4.4 Operational-Phase Impacts No impact on the paleontological resources of the Project area would result from Project operations because such operations would not require any Project activity that would disturb a fossil-bearing rock unit. However, indirect operational impacts might result from unauthorized fossil collecting by operations and maintenance personnel, rock hounds, and amateur and commercial fossil collectors, who would be afforded easier access to exposures of fossil-bearing rock units by the presence of access and spur roads in the corridors. Unauthorized collecting would result in the loss of fossil remains, fossil sites, associated specimen data, corresponding geologic and geographic site data, and the fossil-bearing strata. Such a loss would be permanent PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 39

52 and, therefore, a significant impact. 4.5 Alternatives No-Build Alternative There would be no impact on the paleontological resources of the Project area as a result of the No-Build Alternative because there would be no Project-related grounddisturbing activity that would affect any fossil-bearing rock unit. On the other hand, any fossil remains that might have been exposed as a result of such ground-disturbing activities would not have been exposed and made accessible for recovery and future study by qualified paleontologists Segment 9 Alternatives (Whirlwind Substation Sites) The 3 proposed Whirlwind Substation sites at the junction of the Segments 4 and 10 are underlain by Younger Alluvium. Consequently, Project-related ground-disturbing activities would have an impact of undetermined (but probably no more than moderate) significance on paleontologic resources at depths greater than 5 feet below the present ground surface Segment 10 Alternatives Segment 10 and its alternatives 10A and 10B are underlain by Older and Younger Alluvium. Consequently, Project-related ground-disturbing activities would have an impact of undetermined (but probably no more than moderate) significance on paleontologic resources, but only at depths greater than 5 feet below the present ground surface in areas underlain by Younger Alluvium. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 40

53 Chapter 5 Applicant Proposed Measures The APMs to be implemented would constitute a Paleontological Resources Management Plan (PRMP) that would reduce significant impacts on the paleontological resources of the proposed Project area to a less-than-significant level. The PRMP would be conducted in compliance with SVP (1995, 1996) standard measures for reducing the impact of ground-disturbing activities on paleontologic resources, and for the museum repository acceptance of a PRMP fossil collection. 5.1 Construction Phase The following measures constitute a Paleontologic Resource Management Plan (PRMP) that, if implemented, would reduce significant direct and indirect construction-phase impacts on the paleontological resources of the Project area to a less-than-significant level. The PRMP would provide for the recovery of scientifically important fossil remains and associated fossil specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data, should any fossil remains be encountered by Project-related ground-disturbing activities. Such activities would include grading for access and spur roads and pads, trenching for foundations, and boring for tower and pole foundations and other structures. Once recovered, fossil remains would be fully treated (prepared, identified, curated, and catalogued), preserved in a recognized museum repository, where associated data would be archived, and made available for future study by qualified scientific investigators. Recovery of fossil remains as part of a mitigation program is allowed under CEQA Appendix G (5c). These APMs would be implemented only in those parts of the proposed Project area where ground-disturbing activities (grading, trenching, boring, etc.) would encounter undisturbed strata, but would not be implemented in areas underlain by Younger Alluvium with an undetermined, moderate, or high potential for containing fossil remains until these activities had reached a depth 3 to 5 feet below the present ground surface. No measure would not be implemented in areas underlain by igneous and metamorphic rock units, landslide deposits, artificial fill, or sedimentary rock units that probably were too coarse grained to contain identifiable fossil remains. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 41

54 5.1.1 Mitigation Plan Design Criteria Recommended levels and types of mitigation effort in the proposed Project area reflect: The type of rock comprising a particular rock unit, The paleontological productivity of the rock unit and the corresponding potential for fossil remains being encountered by Project-related grounddisturbing activities, The scientific importance of the rock unit and its corresponding sensitivity to impacts, and The types and magnitudes of the impacts arising from these ground-disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities in areas underlain by paleontologically highly sensitive rock units would require intensive paleontological construction monitoring and coordination, while such activities in an area underlain by a rock unit of moderate or undetermined sensitivity would require intermittent monitoring. Monitoring would not be required in areas underlain by landslide debris, artificial fill, or previously disturbed strata, or rock units of low or no paleontological importance, unless such activities were expected to encounter rock units of higher importance at depth, or in an area in which a rock unit of higher importance would be buried, but not otherwise disturbed. No matrix sample would be recovered or processed if the rock or sediment comprising the sample were too coarse grained or resistant to breaking down in water. The discovery and subsequent recovery of fossil remains as part of the mitigation program might result in a delay of some Project-related ground-disturbing activities. However, the APMs presented below have been designed to eliminate or reduce any delay to the greatest extent possible by: Ensuring that a paleontological construction monitor would be present when and where fossil remains were most likely to be encountered by grounddisturbing activities, Providing for the rapid recovery of fossil remains exposed by these activities PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 42

55 and for the prompt recording of associated specimen and site data, and Diverting such activities temporarily around a newly discovered fossil site until the remains had been removed by the monitor and the activities allowed to proceed through the site. Similar paleontological resource impact mitigation programs usually have resulted in little or no delay of ground-disturbing activities on other projects Beneficial Effects of Applicant Proposed Measures If the APMs described below were implemented, project-related ground-disturbing activities might produce beneficial effects with regard to paleontologic resources. The exposure of fossil-bearing strata would allow for the discovery of unrecorded fossil sites and the recovery of scientifically important fossil remains that otherwise would not even have been exposed without these activities. Moreover, these remains, associated fossil specimen data, and corresponding geologic and geographic site data, instead of being lost to such activities or to unauthorized fossil collecting, would be preserved in a museum repository, where they would be available to qualified scientific investigators for future study. Recovered fossil remains would be particularly important if they represented: A new or rare species, A new geologic or geographic record for their respective species, A skeletal element different from, or a more complete specimen than, those now available for its respective species, An age-diagnostic or environmentally sensitive species, or A specimen whose geologic age can be determined by Carbon-14 dating analysis. Finally, these remains would provide a more comprehensive paleontological resource inventory of the proposed Project area and vicinity than is now available or would PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 43

56 have been available without the Project. Such an inventory would be another beneficial effect of the Project Qualifications of Paleontologist Implementing Paleontological Resource Management Plan The APMs presented below will be directed and coordinated by a paleontologist or a paleontological consulting firm. The paleontologist will have a graduate degree in paleontology or a related field, and substantial experience designing and conducting PRMPs in areas underlain by fossil-bearing rock units. Paleontological construction monitors and other paleontological staff members working under the direction of the paleontologist will have experience monitoring ground-disturbing activities, recovering fossil vertebrate skeletons, and recovering and processing large fossilbearing matrix samples Compliance with Lead Agency and Professional Society Guidelines The APMs recommended below are in compliance with any USFS or CPUC guideline regarding the protection of paleontological resources, and with SVP (1995, 1996) standard measures for mitigating construction-related impacts on paleontological resources. The paleontologist would ensure implementation of, and compliance with, these measures and verify their effectiveness. The results of the program would be reported in a final technical report of results and findings that would be submitted to SCE for their approval Applicant Proposed Measures The literature review and archival search, as well as a review of geologic maps covering the proposed Project area, indicated that the area is underlain partly by paleontologically moderately and highly sensitive rock units (Appendix A), and that Project-related ground-disturbing activities would have a moderate to high potential for encountering fossil remains where the proposed Project area is underlain by these rock units. APMs that would be implemented in a particular part of a proposed Project area are based on the sensitivity of the underlying rock unit. These measures include paleontological pre-construction surveys and construction monitoring, which would PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 44

57 be conducted in conjunction with other measures provided below. These measures are tabulated by rock unit and segment in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. Table 5.1 Applicant Proposed Measures by Segment and Rock Unit Segment and Sub- Segment General Igneous and Metamorphic Rock Units Measures/Rock Unit Tertiary Rock Units and Older Alluvium a Younger Alluvium b APMs PALEO 1-4: General Application 4 None None/PALEO 5-9 None/PALEO None None/PALEO 5-9 None/PALEO None None None/PALEO None PALEO 5-9 None/PALEO 5-9 8A, B, C Not Present PALEO 5-9 None/PALEO , 10A, 10B Not Present None/PALEO 5-9 None/PALEO North None None/PALEO 5-9 None/PALEO South None PALEO 5-9 None/PALEO 5-9 a No APM would be required if strata were too coarse grained to contain identifiable fossil remains. b No PM would be required at depths less than 3 to 5 feet below present ground surface, unless fossil remains were encountered by ground-disturbing activities, and where strata were too coarse grained to contain identifiable fossil remains. APM PALEO-1: Retention of Project Paleontologist. Prior to construction, a Project Paleontologist or paleontological consulting firm approved by the lead agencies would be retained by SCE to supervise the paleontologic monitoring of Project-related ground-disturbing activities, the collection and processing of fossilbearing matrix samples, and the comprehensive treatment of any recovered fossil remains, and to prepare a PRMP for the proposed Project. More specific paleontological resource monitoring guidelines would be provided in the PRMP. APM PALEO-2: Conduct Pre-Construction Paleontological Field Survey. The Project Paleontologist and/or his designated representative will conduct a preconstruction field survey of the Project area where underlain by Tertiary rock units PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 45

58 and older alluvium. The survey would allow for the recovery of any exposed fossil remains without delaying construction. The results of the survey and corresponding recommendation would be incorporated into the PRMP. Segment and Sub- Segment A, B, C 9 10, 10A, 10B 11 (North and South) Table 5.2 Monitoring Requirements by Segment and Rock Unit Igneous and Metamorphic Rock Units No Monitoring Required No Monitoring Required No Monitoring Required No Monitoring Required No Monitoring Required No Monitoring Required No Monitoring Required No Monitoring Required Measure/Rock Unit Tertiary Rock Units and Older Alluvium a Younger Alluvium b Monitoring in Monitoring Below 5 Fine-Grained Monitoring in Monitoring Below 5 Fine-Grained Monitoring in Monitoring Below 5 Fine-Grained Monitoring in Monitoring Below 5 Fine-Grained Monitoring in Fine-Grained Monitoring in Fine-Grained Monitoring in Fine-Grained Monitoring in Fine-Grained Monitoring Below 3 to 5 Monitoring Below 5 Monitoring Below 5 Monitoring Below 5 Impact Level After APM Implementation Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant a No monitoring would be required if strata were too coarse grained to contain identifiable fossil remains. b No monitoring would be required at depths less than 3 to 5 feet below present ground surface, unless fossil remains were encountered by ground-disturbing activities, and where strata were too coarse grained to contain identifiable fossil remains. APM PALEO-3 Paleontological Resource Management Plan. The PRMP plan would be prepared and implemented by the Project Paleontologist following completion of the pre-construction field survey, and would address and incorporate PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 46

59 the following APMs: APM-PALEO-4: Environmental Training. Construction supervisors and crew members would be provided with environmental awareness training regarding the protection of paleontological resources and the procedures to be implemented in the event fossil remains were encountered by ground-disturbing activities, particularly when a paleontologic construction monitor was not on site. APM-PALEO-5: Construction Monitoring. Ground-disturbing activities would be monitored on a part-time or full-time basis by a paleontological construction monitor only in those parts of the Project area where these activities would disturb previously undisturbed strata in rock units of undetermined, moderate, and high sensitivity. Such activities in areas underlain by igneous and metamorphic rock units, landslide deposits, or artificial fill would not be monitored, but would be spot checked to determine when a potentially fossil-bearing rock unit had been encountered under the landslide deposits or artificial fill. Monitoring would not be implemented in areas underlain by Younger Alluvium until these activities had reached a depth 5 feet below the present ground surface (3 feet in Chino Valley) and fine-grained strata had been encountered. Ground-disturbing activities in areas underlain by rock units of low sensitivity would be monitored on a quarter-time basis or spot checked if fine-grained strata were present. Paleontological monitoring would include the inspection of exposed strata and would allow for the discovery and recovery of larger fossil remains and the recording of associated specimen and site data. Monitoring also would include the collection and processing of matrix samples to allow for the recovery of smaller or microfossil remains. APM PALEO-6: Specimen and Sample Recovery and Sample Testing. If larger fossil remains or microfossils were encountered ground-disturbing activities, these activities would be temporarily diverted away from the discovery site and the paleontological construction monitor would notify all concerned parties and then would recover the fossil remains or collect a matrix sample, which would be test processed as directed by the Project Paleontologist. As appropriate, matrix samples with no visible microfossils would be collected and test processed because microfossils, including scientifically highly important microvertebrate remains, often are too small to be observed by a monitor in the field. In order to expedite removal of a large fossil occurrence or a large fossil-bearing matrix sample, the monitor would request additional staff or heavy equipment and an operator to assist in moving the PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 47

60 fossil occurrence or matrix sample out of the path of ground-disturbing activities to a designated storage area. These activities would proceed through the fossil or sampling site once the occurrence or sample had been removed and approval had been provided by the monitor. Test processing a sample would consist of screen washing a small portion of the sample to determine if important fossil remains were present in sufficient numbers and were sufficiently well preserved and taxonomically diverse to warrant additional processing. If such fossil remains were present, some or all of the remaining matrix would be processed to allow for the recovery of additional remains representing an even greater taxonomic diversity of species than in the test sample. The total weight of all samples processed would be limited to a maximum of 6,000 pounds from each rock unit, although up to 6,000 pounds of matrix could be processed from both the Older and Younger Alluvium in the western Antelope Valleys; in the San Gabriel Mountains and the adjacent Montebello, Puente, and Chino Hills; and in the Chino Valley and the adjacent Chino Hills. APM PALEO-7: Monthly Progress Reports. The Project Paleontologist would document the interim results of construction monitoring with monthly progress reports. In addition, daily monitoring logs maintained by the paleontological construction monitor would record any specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data and sample weight, and stratigraphic columnar sections would be measured at fossil and sampling sites. APM PALEO-8: Treatment of Fossil Remains and Preparation of Final Report. The Project Paleontologist would direct the final processing of any sample and the comprehensive treatment of any potentially identifiable fossil remains recovered as the result of monitoring ground-disturbing activities and sample processing. Such treatment would include preparing the specimens to a point allowing their identification to the lowest taxonomic level possible, stabilizing the specimens, and identification of the specimens by knowledgeable paleontologists, as well as their curation and cataloging in accordance with the requirements of the museum repository designated by SCE to receive the TRTP fossil collection (see APM PALEO-9, below). When appropriate and in consultation with SCE, splits of some matrix samples would be submitted to commercial laboratories for microfossil, pollen, or radiometric dating analysis. The entire TRTP fossil collection then would be transferred to the repository. A final Paleontological Resource Recovery Report summarizing the results of the fossil recovery program would be prepared by the Project Paleontologist and/or his designated representative. The report would be PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 48

61 prepared in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (1995) guidelines, and lead agency requirements. The final report would be submitted to SCE, the lead agencies, and the museum repository (see below). APM PALEO-9: Museum Repository Storage Agreement. Prior to construction, SCE would enter into a formal agreement with a recognized museum repository, ensure that the TRTP fossil collection would be fully treated in accordance with repository requirements, and provide a copy of the final Paleontological Resource Recovery Report, which would accompany the fossil collection and associated specimen and site data to the repository. Successful implementation of the APMs would reduce all Project-related impacts on the paleontological resources of the Project area to a less-than-significant level. 5.2 Operational Phase Operating activities for the power lines and towers (e.g., washing, road/pad clearance, replacements, etc.) do not involve any activity that would affect paleontological resources. Therefore, no impact is expected. 5.3 No-Build Alternative No APM would be required for the no-build alternative because there would be no ground-disturbing activity that would disturb any fossil-bearing rock unit. 5.4 Other Alternatives The same APMs would be required for the various alternatives because there would be ground-disturbing activities that might disturb fossil-bearing rock units. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 49

62 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 50

63 Chapter 6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Although some fossil remains and associated fossil specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data might be lost to Project-related ground-disturbing activities, no significant unavoidable or residual impact on the paleontological resources of the proposed Project area would be expected to occur as result of these activities if the PRMP were implemented. The PRMP would ensure that adequate samples of the fossil remains encountered by these activities would be recovered, associated specimen site data would be recorded, recovered remains would be fully treated, and that the entire TRTP fossil would be transferred to a museum repository, where, along with associated data, they would be made available to scientific investigators for future study. Matrix samples collected for processing would be large enough to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the taxonomic diversity of the smaller animal life that inhabited the proposed Project area and vicinity during the deposition of the sediments comprising the sampled fossil-bearing rock units. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 51

64 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 52

65 Chapter 7 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would occur if the proposed Project, in combination with other past, current, and future projects in the proposed Project area vicinity, reduced the exposure of fossil-bearing strata in a particular rock unit that could have been prospected or sampled for fossil remains. Fossil-bearing strata would be made unavailable for prospecting if they were disturbed, excavated, covered with construction or fill, or in some other way made inaccessible for paleontological investigation. However, exposures of fossil-bearing rock in the Tertiary sedimentary rock units and older alluvium would not be covered with construction or fill and made unavailable for future paleontologic investigation. Moreover, the amount of ground disturbance, even with regard to boring for tower and pole foundations in areas underlain by these rock units, would be minimal. Therefore, the Project would not result in any significant cumulative impact in areas underlain by these sensitive rock units, particularly where the rock units were too coarse grained to contain any fossil remains. At depths less than 3 to 5 feet below the present ground surface, the younger alluvium has only a low potential for containing any remains old enough to be considered fossilized. Therefore, any cumulative impact on the paleontological resources of the proposed Project area and vicinity where underlain by this rock unit would be less than significant. However, because any fossil-bearing strata in the proposed Project area and vicinity probably would be at depths at least 3 to 5 feet below the present ground surface in those areas overlain by younger alluvium, the fossil-bearing rock normally would not have been accessible for paleontological investigation without the ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed Project and other past and future projects in the proposed Project area vicinity. Therefore, even at depths greater than 3 to 5 feet, any cumulative impact on the paleontological resources of the proposed Project area and vicinity where underlain by younger alluvium would be less than significant. Of the remaining rock units in the project area, the igneous and metamorphic rock units are non-fossil-bearing, whereas any fossil remains in artificial fill or landslide deposits would have been removed from their original geological contexts. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 53

66 Consequently, there would be no cumulative impact on the paleontological resources of the proposed Project area and vicinity where underlain by these rock units. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 54

67 Chapter 8 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation 8.1 Determining Significance Under CEQA Under CEQA Appendix G(5c), an impact would be considered potentially significant if it would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. However, few fossil sites would be considered unique if the latter term were too narrowly defined (Scott and Springer 2003). For example, after the first specimen of a Columbian mammoth had been found, neither the second specimen of this species nor the fossil site yielding the specimen would be considered unique, even if the first specimen or the site that produced the specimen no longer existed. On the other hand, a fossil site is considered a cultural resource under CEQA (California Public Resources Code section ) and, according to Scott and Springer (2003), would be considered historically significant if it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory. 8.2 CEQA Environmental Checklist As indicated below in the CEQA Environmental Checklist, implementation of the APMs discussed in Chapter 5 would avoid and minimize impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significance level. No mitigation measures are required. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 55

68 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? 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? N/A Not Applicable to Paleontological Resources. 8.3 Discussion of Significant Impacts Less Than Significant Impact No Impact N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Paleontological resources include an undetermined number of fossil specimens and unrecorded fossil sites, associated fossil specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data, and the fossil-bearing rock units. These resources might be disturbed by, or lost to, the permanent direct and indirect impacts of Project-related ground-disturbing activities. The disturbance or loss of such resources would be considered an adverse impact under CEQA. Such impacts are discussed in detail in X PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 56

69 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences and are tabulated by segment, subsegment, and rock unit in Table Applicant Proposed Measures Any impact on identifiable fossil remains and the fossil-bearing rock unit is considered significant under CEQA. A specific level of significance can be assigned to such an impact, based on the scientific importance or impact sensitivity of the rock unit and the potential for fossil remains being disturbed by Project-related grounddisturbing activities. By applying APMs through the implementation of the PRMP (e.g., paleontological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities and recovery of fossil remains exposed by Project-related ground-disturbing activities), impacts on the paleontological resources of the proposed Project area would be less-than-significant. Monitoring would allow for the recovery of scientifically important fossil remains, should any be encountered by these activities, and for the recording of associated fossil specimen data and corresponding geologic and geographic site data. The APMs also would provide for the comprehensive treatment of any recovered fossil remains, the preservation of the entire TRTP fossil collection and the archiving of associated specimen and site data at a recognized museum repository, and the availability of the specimens and data for future study by qualified scientific investigators. Without the APMs, the specimens and data would be lost to ground-disturbing activities and to unauthorized fossil collecting. Specimen recovery would be allowed under CEQA Appendix G(5c). APMs are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 and presented by segment, subsegment, and rock unit in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 57

70 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 58

71 Chapter 9 Summary of Agency/Public Consultation and Coordination 9.1 Federal Agencies A USFS Paleontological Resource Special Use Permit would be obtained if APMs and the PRMP were implemented with regard to Project-related ground-disturbing activities in the ANF (Segments 6 and 11 and Gould Substation). Such a permit would be required under the Antiquities Act of 1906 or FLPMA only if these APMs and the PRMP were implemented on Federal land, including in the ANF. 9.2 State Agencies APMs and the PRMP will comply with any State regulation or guideline regarding the mitigation of impacts on paleontologic resources and the qualifications of PRMP key personnel. 9.3 Local Agencies A paleontologic records search was conducted at the LACM and the UCMP online database was accessed in support of this technical report. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 59

72 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 60

73 Chapter 10 List of Preparers This technical report was prepared by Drs. E. Bruce Lander and C. Thomas Williams, Principal Investigators and Senior Vertebrate Paleontologists with Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc. (PEAI), of Altadena, California. Both have Ph.D. degrees in Paleontology from the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Lander is a Principal of PEAI and a Research Associate with the LACM. He previously served as the Principal Investigator or Project Paleontologist for a number of earlier linear construction projects elsewhere in southern California, as well as a number of other major construction projects in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project area. Drs. Williams and Lander were assisted in the preparation of this report by Dr. Hugh M. Wagner, another PEAI Senior Vertebrate Paleontologist with a M.A. degree in paleontology from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Ph.D. degree in Geology from the University of California, Riverside. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 61

74 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 62

75 Chapter 11 Literature Cited Axelrod, D.I The Anaverde Flora of southern California. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 590: Bortugno, E.J., and T.E. Spittler, compilers Geologic map of the San Bernardino Quadrangle. California Division of Mines and Geology Regional Geologic Map Series Map 3A (Geology). Clarke, A.O Quaternary evolution of the San Bernardino Valley. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 26(2&3): Daviess, S.N., and A.O. Woodford Geology and structure of the northwestern Puente Hills, California. United States Geological Survey Oil and Gas Investigations Preliminary Map 83. Dibblee, T.W., Jr Geologic Map of the Pasadena Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-23. Dibblee, T.W., Jr Geologic Map of the Acton Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-59. Dibblee, T.W., Jr Geologic Map of the Sleepy Valley and Ritter Ridge Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-66. Dibblee, T.W., Jr Geologic Map of the Mt. Wilson and Azusa Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-67. Dibblee, T.W., Jr Geologic Map of the El Monte and Baldwin Park Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-69. Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 2001a. Geologic Map of the Whittier and La Habra Quadrangles (Western Puente Hills), Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-74. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 63

76 Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 2001b. Geologic Map of the Yorba Linda and Prado Dam Quadrangles, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-75. Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 2001c. Geologic Map of the Pacifico Mountain and Palmdale (South Half) Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-76. Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 2002a. Geologic Map of the Lake Hughes and Del Sur Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-82. Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 2002b. Geologic Map of the Chilao Flat Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-85. Dibblee, T.W., Jr. 2002c. Geologic Map of the San Dimas and Ontario Quadrangles, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-91. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., and B. Carter Geologic Map of the Condor Peak Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation Map DF-84. Durham, D.L. and R.F. Yerkes Geology and oil resources of the eastern Puente Hills area, southern California, Geology of the eastern Los Angeles Basin, southern California. United States. Geological Survey Professional Paper 420- B:B1-B62. Jefferson, G.T A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two, Mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports 7: Jennings, C.W., and R.G. Strand (compilers) Los Angeles Sheet. Geologic map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition. California Division of Mines and Geology. Lander, E.B Paleontologic resource impact mitigation program Final Report Puente Hills Landfill Expansion Los Angeles County, California. Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc., project no Prepared for County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County, Solid Waste Management Department. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 64

77 Lander, E.B., Los Angeles Metro Red Line Project final paleontologic resource impact mitigation program final technical report of findings. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Lander, E.B., Eastern Transportation Corridor paleontologic resource impact mitigation program final technical report of results and findings. Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc., project no / Prepared for Raytheon Infrastructure Services Incorporated and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency. Lander, E.B., Paleontologic resource monitoring program final report, Western Fox Field Property Development, Lancaster, northern Los Angeles County, California. Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc., project no Prepared for H.T. Harvey & Associates. Lander, E.B., Paleontologic resource inventory/impact assessment and recommended mitigation measures, Service Rock Products parcels, Palmdale, Los Angeles County, California. Paleo Environmental Associates, Inc., project no Prepared for Kjelstrom Associates. Miller, W.E., Pleistocene vertebrates of the Los Angeles Basin and vicinity (exclusive of Rancho La Brea). Bulletin of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Science 10: Morton, D.M Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30 x 60 Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0 (version 2.0, 2004). United States Geological Survey Open-File Report Morton, D.M., and F. K. Miller Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Bernardino 30 x 60 Quadrangle, California, Version 1.0. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report Noble, K.F Geology of the Pearland Quadrangle, California. United States Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Maps of the United States GQ-24. Repenning, C.A Biochronology of the microtine rodents of the United States. pp In M.O. Woodburne (ed.). Cenozoic mammals of North America: Geochronology and Biostratigraphy. University of California Press. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 65

78 Reynolds, R.E Mid-Pleistocene faunas of the west-central Mojave Desert. pp In R.E. Reynolds (ed.). The West-Central Mojave Desert: Quaternary Studies Between Kramer and Afton Canyon. San Bernardino County Museum Association Special Publication. Reynolds, R.E., J. Reynolds, M.A. Roeder, and R.W. Huddleston Paleontologic Salvage, Robert O. Townsend Junior High School, Chino, San Bernardino County, California. San Bernardino County Museum. Prepared for Chino Unified School District, Chino, California. Reynolds, R.E., and R.L. Reynolds, Late Pleistocene faunas of Lake Thompson. In M.O. Woodburne, R.E. Reynolds, and D.P. Whistler (eds.). Inland southern California: The last 70 million years A self-guiding tour of major paleontologic localities from Temecula to Red Rock Canyon: Fossils, structure, and geologic history. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 38(3&4): Rogers, T.H. (compiler) Santa Ana Sheet. Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition. California Division of Mines and Geology. Rogers, T.H. (compiler) San Bernardino Sheet. Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition. California Division of Mines and Geology. Saul, L.R. and C.J. Stadum Fossil argonauts (Mollusca: Cephalopoda: Octopodida) from late Miocene siltstones of the Los Angeles Basin, California. Journal of Paleontology 79(3): Scott, E. and K.B. Springer CEQA and Fossil Preservation in California. The Environmental Monitor Fall 2003:4-10, 17. Smith, A.R. (compiler) Geologic map of California, Bakersfield Sheet. California Division of Mines, Geologic map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition. California Division of Mines and Geology. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Nonrenewable Paleontologic Resources: Standard Guidelines. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin volume 163: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 66

79 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Conditions of receivership for paleontologic salvage collections. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin volume 166: Wagner, H.M Final paleontologic report, Laband Village Tract 13651, Phase I (Areas 1-10), Chino Hills, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared by Zeiser Geotechnical Inc. Prepared for Rivendell Management Group. Yerkes, R. F Geology and oil resources of the western Puente Hills area, southern California. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 420- C:C1-C63. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 67

80 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 68

81 Appendix A PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 69

82 TRTP Maps Project Route Maps on 2-Degree Sheets A Bakersfield Sheet. Geology after Rogers (1964). B Los Angeles Sheet. Geology after Jennings and Strand (1969). C San Bernardino Sheet. Geology after Rogers (1967). Project Route Maps with Substation Sites on 7.5-Minute Topographic Maps 1A Segments 4 and 10 and Wind Hub, Whirlwind, and Cottonwind Substations. 1B Segments 4 and 5 and Whirlwind Substation. 1C Segment 8 [eastern end] and Mira Loma Substation. Project Route Maps on 7.5-Minute Quadrangles 1 Lake Hughes and Del Sur Quadrangles. Geology after Dibblee (2002a). 2 Sleepy Valley and Ritter Ridge Quadrangles. Geology after Dibblee (1997). 3 Pacifico Mountain and Palmdale Quadrangles. Geology after Dibblee (2001c). 4 Chilao Flat Quadrangle. Geology after Dibblee (2002b). 5 Mt. Wilson and Azusa Quadrangles. Geology after Dibblee (1998). 6 El Monte and Baldwin Park Quadrangles. Geology after Dibblee (1999). 7 Acton Quadrangle. Geology after Dibblee (1996). 8 Condor Peak Quadrangle. Geology after Dibblee and Carter (2002). 9 Pasadena Quadrangle. Geology after Dibblee (1989). 10 San Dimas and Ontario Quadrangles. Geology after Dibblee (2002c). 11 Whittier and La Habra Quadrangles. Geology after Dibblee (2001a). 12 Yorba Linda and Prado Dam Quadrangles. Geology after Dibblee (2001b). PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 70

83 Map A Bakersfield Sheet (SCE Map 10; Segment 10) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 71

84 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 72

85 Map B Los Angeles Sheet (SCE Map 08; Segments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 73

86 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 74

87 Map C San Bernardino Sheet (SCE Map 09; Segments 6, 7, and 8) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 75

88 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 76

89 Map 1A Project Route Maps (SCE Maps 01, 02, 03, and 04; Segments 4 and 10 and Wind Hub, Whirlwind, and Cottonwind Substations) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 77

90 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 78

91 Map 1B Project Route Maps (SCE Route Maps 05, 06, and 07; Segments 4 and 5 and Whirlwind Substation) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 79

92 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 80

93 Map 1C Project Route Maps (SCE Route Maps 24 and 25; Segment 8 [eastern end] and Mira Loma Substation) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 81

94 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 82

95 Map 1 Lake Hughes and Del Sur Quadrangles (SCE Map 23; Segments 4 and 5 and Antelope Substation) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 83

96 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 84

97 Map 2 Sleepy Valley and Ritter Ridge Quadrangles (SCE Map 13; Segments 4 and 5) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 85

98 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 86

99 Map 3 Pacifico and Palmdale Quadrangles (SCE Map 22; Segments 5, 6, and 11 and Vincent Substation) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 87

100 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 88

101 Map 4 Chilao Flat Quadrangle (SCE Map 25; Segment 6) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 89

102 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 90

103 Map 5 Mt. Wilson and Azusa Quadrangles (Segments 6, 7, and 11 and Gould Substation) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 91

104 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 92

105 Map 6 El Monte and Baldwin Park Quadrangles (SCE Map 17; Segments 7, 8, and 11 and Mesa Substation) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 93

106 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 94

107 Map 7 Acton Quadrangle (SCE Map 12; Segment 11) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 95

108 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 96

109 Map 8 Condor Peak Quadrangle (SCE Map 24; Segment 11) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 97

110 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 98

111 Map 9 Pasadena Quadrangle (SCE Map 11; Segment 11) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 99

112 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 100

113 Map 10 San Dimas and Ontario Quadrangles (SCE Map 26; Segment 8) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 101

114 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 102

115 Map 11 Whittier and La Habra Quadrangles (SCE Map 19; Segment 8) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 103

116 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 104

117 Map 12 Yorba Linda and Prado Dam Quadrangles (SCE Map 20; Segment 8 and Chino Substation) PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 105