HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 15-11; YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION; PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT; 2016-01-11•
-
...
-
.... ---
-
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Y ADA FAMILY TRUST PROJECT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
-~ -.¥!U~-
:~"'
PALEOSERVICES
SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
Prepared for:
Y ADA FAMILY TRUST
c/o BHA, INC.
5115 A VENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE L
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-8700
Prepared by:
DEPARTMENT OF PALEOSERVICES
SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
P.O. Box 121390
SAN DIEGO, CA 92112
Shelly L. Donohue, M.S., Paleontological Report Writer
Thomas A. Demere, Ph.D., Director
11 January2016
•
•
•
• .. ----
--
--
---
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF WORK
This technical report provides an assessment of paleontological resources at the Yada Family Trust
project site in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, CA. The project site is located in northwest
Carlsbad, CA, at I835 Buena Vista Way. This 4.I4-acre site is bordered to the northwest by Buena
Vista Way, to the southeast by McCauley Lane, to the southwest by Valley Street, and to the
northeast by an existing residential and agricultural property (Figure I). Currently, the site is
occupied by one single family home (to remain during construction), and the remainder of the
property contains agricultural land and greenhouse facilities. The proposed Yada Family Trust
project involves construction of a new I4-lot subdivision of single family residential homes (13
proposed, I existing) and associated infrastructure (e.g., utilities, streets, driveways, sidewalks,
landscaping). Excavations associated with construction of this subdivision generally will be
shallow (<2 feet), except for one site where remedial earthwork for contaminated soils may extend
up to 23 feet below existing grade. Because these excavations have the potential to impact native
sedimentary rocks, it was determined that a paleontological resource assessment should be
conducted, in order to determine whether the proposed project has potential to negatively impact
paleontological resources.
This assessment report is intended to summarize existing paleontological resource data in the
project area, discuss the significance of these resources, examine project related impacts to
paleontological resources, and suggest mitigation measures to reduce impacts to paleontological
resources to less than significant levels. The assessment includes the results of an institutional
records search of the paleontological collections at the San Diego Natural History Museum
(SDNHM). This report was written by Shelly L. Donohue and Thomas A. Demere of the
Department of Paleo Services, SDNHM.
1.2 DEFINITION OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As defined here, paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are the buried remains and/or traces of
prehistoric organisms (i.e., animals, plants, and microbes). Body fossils such as bones, teeth,
shells, leaves, and wood, as well as trace fossils such as tracks, trails, burrows, and footprints, are
found in the geological deposits (formations) within which they were originally buried. The
primary factor determining whether an object is a fossil or not isn't how the organic remain or
trace is preserved (e.g., "petrified"), but rather the age of the organic remain or trace. Although
typically it is assumed that fossils must be older than -I 0,000 years (i.e., the generally accepted
end ofthe last glacial period ofthe Pleistocene Epoch), organic remains of early Holocene age can
also be considered to represent fossils because they are part ofthe record of past life.
Fossils are considered important scientific and educational resources because they serve as direct
and indirect evidence of prehistoric life and are used to understand the history of life on Earth, the
nature of past environments and climates, the membership and structure of ancient ecosystems,
and the pattern and process of organic evolution and extinction. In addition, fossils are considered
to be non-renewable resources because typically the organisms they represent no longer exist.
Thus, once destroyed, a particular fossil can never be replaced. And finally, for the purposes of
this report, paleontological resources can be thought of as including not only the actual fossil
remains and traces, but also the fossil collecting localities and the geological formations containing
those localities.
Yada Family Trust Project-Paleontological Resource Assessment, January 2016 1
/'.../ ,....,_ • SOfjHM ,_ t.-,
• _,_L-,_1_ ......
Yada Family Trust Project -Paleontological Resource Assessment. January 2016
l:lt,OOO
ttncf'l •2.187 '-t e
0 04
L____ ·-.....
2
•
•
•
..
..
•
•
•
• ..
..
• ..
• -
2.0METHODS
2.1 PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH AND LITERATURE SEARCH
A paleontological record search was conducted at SDNHM in order to determine if any
documented fossil collection localities occur within the project site or immediately surrounding
area. The record search involved examination of the SDNHM paleontological database for any
records of known fossil collection localities within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project site.
Additionally, a review was conducted of relevant published geologic maps and reports (e.g,
Kennedy, 1975; Kennedy and Tan, 2008), published paleontological reports (e.g., Hertlein and
Grant, 1939, Kern, 1977; Demere, 1981; 1983), and other relevant literature (e.g., field trip
guidebooks, theses and dissertations, unpublished paleontological mitigation reports). This
approach was followed in recognition of the direct relationship between paleontological resources
and the geologic formations within which they are entombed. Knowing the geologic history of a
particular area and the fossil productivity of geologic formations that occur in that area, it is
possible to predict where fossils will, or will not, be encountered.
2.2 PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY {NOT CONDUCTED)
A paleontological field survey is typically conducted for paleontological resource assessments in
order to confirm the mapped geology, to field check the results of the literature and record searches,
and to determine the paleontological sensitivity of the strata present within the proposed project
site. However, a survey of the Yada Family Trust project site was not conducted because a survey
of the property immediately northeast of the project site had previously been conducted by Shelly
L. Donohue on February 11, 2015. As part of this earlier survey, all available exposures of
sedimentary rock in the immediate vicinity were also examined, which included the slope on the
southwest side of Monroe Street, a trench on the east side ofValley Street and Buena Vista Way,
and visual inspection from an elevated vantage point of active earthwork occurring on the property
to the southwest of Valley Street and Buena Vista Way. Because sedimentary strata on the west
and east sides of the Yada Family Trust project site have already been inspected for paleontological
resource potential, it was determined that an additional field survey was not necessary .
During the previous survey, the field paleontologist was equipped with standard field equipment
(e.g., rock hammer, camera, hand lens, tape measure), and a Garmin Handheld GPS unit. GPS
waypoints were keyed to collected field data, including field notes and photographs. Results of the
previously conducted paleontological field survey are presented below, in Section 4.1.2.
2.3 RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
For the present report, the following levels of paleontological resource sensitivity are used to rate
individual geologic rock units/formations, following the guidelines outlined by Demere and Walsh
(1993) for San Diego County.
2.2.1 HIGH SENSITIVITY
High sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations known to contain paleontological localities
with rare, well-preserved, critical fossil materials for stratigraphic or paleoenvironmental
interpretation, and fossils providing important information about the paleobiology and
evolutionary history (phylogeny) of animal and plant groups. Generally speaking, highly sensitive
Yada Family Trust Project-Paleontological Resource Assessment, January 2016 3
...
•
•
!Ill
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
formations produce vertebrate fossil remains or are considered to have the potential to produce
such remains .
2.2.2 MODERATE SENSITIVITY
Moderate sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations known to contain paleontological localities
with poorly preserved, common elsewhere, or stratigraphically unimportant fossil material. The
moderate sensitivity category is also applied to geologic formations that are judged to have a
strong, but unproven potential for producing important fossil remains.
2.2.3 LOW SENSITIVITY
Low sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations that, based on their relative youthful age and/or
high-energy depositional history, are judged unlikely to produce important fossil remains.
Typically, low sensitivity formations produce invertebrate fossil remains in low abundance.
2.2.4 NO SENSITIVITY
Zero sensitivity is assigned to geologic formations that are entirely igneous in origin and therefore
have no potential for producing fossil remains, or to artificial fill materials which lose the
stratigraphic/geologic context of any contained organic remains (e.g., fossils).
2.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Direct impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities (e.g., mass grading,
trenching), cut into the geological rock units within which fossils are buried, and physically destroy
the fossil remains. As such, only earthwork activities that will disturb potentially fossil-bearing
sedimentary rocks (i.e., those rated with a high or moderate paleontological sensitivity) have the
potential to significantly impact paleontological resources. Under California Environmental
Quality Act and County of San Diego guidelines, paleontological mitigation typically is
recommended to reduce any negative impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant
levels.
The purpose of the impact analysis is to determine which (if any) of the proposed project-related
earthwork activities may disturb potentially fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks, and where and at
what depths this earthwork will occur. The paleontological resource impact analysis involved
analysis of all available project documents (e.g., grading plans, geotechnical report), and
comparison with geological and paleontological data gathered during the record search, literature
search, and field survey.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed Yada Family Trust project site lies within the coastal plain of San Diego County.
Along the coastal plain, the Mesozoic basement rocks of the Jurassic-Cretaceous Santiago Peak
Volcanics and the Cretaceous Peninsular Ranges Batholith are nonconformably overlain by
sedimentary rocks of Late Cretaceous, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene age
(Hanna, 1926; Kennedy and Moore, 1971; Kennedy, 1975).
Previous geologic mapping (Kennedy and Tan, 2008; Figure I) indicates that the project area is
entirely underlain by Quaternary Older Paralic Deposits, Units 2-4 (Qop2-4) of Pleistocene-age
Yada Family Trust Project-Paleontological Resource Assessment, January 2016 4
•
•
•
..
•
-·----
.... --• -•
..
..
(about 700,000 to 10,000 years old), which are in turn underlain by deposits of the middle Eocene
Santiago Formation (Ts, about 49 to 40 million years old) .
3.1 QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
Older paralic deposits of Pleistocene-age in coastal San Diego County (also referred to as marine
terrace deposits) occur on a stair-step succession of uplifted marine abrasion platforms (ancient
sea floors) that range in elevation from about 40 feet to over 500 feet above sea level and extend
up to nine miles inland from the coast. The oldest platforms/terraces are in the east and may be up
to one million years old (Kern and Rockwell, 1992). The old paralic deposits exposed within the
project site are correlated with the Bay Point Formation (700,000 to I 0,000 years old), a primarily
near-shore marine rock unit best known from exposures in and around San Diego Bay and Mission
Bay (Kennedy, 1975; Kern, 1977). Typical exposures of old paralic deposits of this age consist of
light gray, friable to partially cemented fine-to coarse-grained, massive to cross-bedded sandstone
(Hertlein and Grant, 1939; Kennedy, 1975), which locally are overlain by non-marine alluvium
and/or colluvium.
Deposits of the Bay Point Formation in coastal San Diego County have produced large and
exceptionally diverse assemblages of well-preserved marine invertebrate fossils, primarily
mollusks (Hertlein and Grant, 1939; Valentine, 1959; Demere, 1981; 1983). Remains of fossil
marine vertebrates (i.e., sharks, rays, and bony fishes) and terrestrial vertebrates (e.g., amphibians,
pond turtle, lizard, snake, bird) including important records of land mammals such as rodents,
rabbit, horse, tapir, camel, deer, bison and ground sloth have also been recovered (Demere and
Walsh, 1993; unpublished SDNHM paleontological records).
3.2 SANTIAGO FORMATION
Woodring and Popenoe (1945) proposed the name "Santiago Formation" to refer to the Eocene-
age sequence of fossiliferous marine siltstone and sandstone beds that crop out in the Santa Ana
Mountains in Orange County, California. Wilson (1972) detailed lithostratigraphic and
biostratigraphic similarities between the Santiago Formation in Orange County, and a sequence of
Eocene marine and nonmarine strata that crop out throughout the northwestern portion of San
Diego County. Based on these similarities Wilson (1972) assigned these strata in the Oceanside
and Carlsbad areas to the Santiago Formation.
The Santiago Formation has produced a wide array of scientifically significant invertebrate and
vertebrate fossils throughout Carlsbad and Oceanside (SDNHM unpublished paleontological
collections data). It is particularly known for its rich collections of exceptionally well-preserved
terrestrial vertebrates including fossil reptiles (e.g., turtles, snakes, lizards, crocodiles), birds, and
mammals (e.g., opossums, insectivores, primates, rodents, brontotheres, rhinoceros, uintathere,
tapirs, protoreodonts, and other early artiodactyls) (Walsh, 1996; Mihlbachler and Demere, 2009;
Tomiya, 2013). Also known from the Santiago Formation are remains of estuarine invertebrates
(Demere and Boettcher 1985; Wilson 1972), and terrestrial land plants (Demere and Walsh, 1993) .
Yada Family Trust Project-Paleontological Resource Assessment, January 2016 5
.. -..
•
•
•
.. ..
--
• -
--...
• ..
•
•
•
--
4.0RESULTS
4.1 RESULTS OF THE PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH
There are I2 recorded fossil collection localities within I mile of the project site (Figure I;
Appendix I), that yielded fossilized remains of marine invertebrates, marine vertebrates, and
terrestrial vertebrates from unnamed Pleistocene alluvial and estuarine deposits. While these
deposits are about the same age as the old paralic deposits underlying the project site, they were
deposited in a coastal valley setting as part of an ancient floodplain and estuary. This depositional
setting differs from that associated with the deposits at the project site, which were deposited in an
exposed shoreline setting (marine terrace).
No fossil collection localities from the old paralic deposits, nor from the Santiago Formation are
known within I mile of the project site. However, fossils are known from these deposits in the
greater Carlsbad area, as outlined above in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Notably, ongoing paleontological
fieldwork conducted in these areas has suggested that for the old paralic deposits, areas comprised
of weathered and oxidized strata typically only contain fossils in the basal layers ofthese deposits.
Sedimentary layers occurring at higher levels in the old paralic deposits are often barren of fossils .
4.2 RESULTS OF THE PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY
During the paleontological field survey ofthe property adjacent to the Yada Family Trust project
site, weathered exposures of the old paralic deposits were observed and generally consisted of
oxidized, reddish brown, micaceous, poorly sorted, silty, fine-to medium-grained sandstones with
occasional pebbles. Observations of deposits exposed in the slope adjacent to Monroe A venue, as
well as in the trench along Valley Street indicated that the heavily oxidized nature of the deposits
extends throughout the majority of the old paralic deposits exposed in this region, to an elevation
of approximately I60 feet above sea level (lowest elevation being impacted during observations
of earthwork on the adjacent property). The Santiago Formation was not exposed at the surface in
the vicinity of the proposed project site, and thus was not examined.
No fossils were observed during the previous paleontological field survey.
4.3 RESULTS OF PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
4.3.I QUA TERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
Old paralic deposits at the project site are assigned a moderate paleontological sensitivity based
on two primary factors: I) the presence of fossils in similar deposits elsewhere in the Carlsbad
area; and 2) the lack of fossil discoveries in these deposits within a I-mile radius of the proposed
project site.
As discussed above, it is most likely that if fossils are to be discovered in old paralic deposits at
the project site, they will occur near the base of these deposits. Further, because horticultural
activities occurred previously at the project site, it is likely that the uppermost sedimentary layers
(about 0-4 feet below existing grade) have been disturbed and will not contain in-place fossils.
Thus, while the old paralic deposits as a whole are assigned a moderate paleontological sensitivity,
the deposits from 0-4 feet below existing grade are considered to be of low paleontological
sensitivity .
Yada Family Trust Project-Paleontological Resource Assessment, January 2016 6
•
•
... -
•
-..
-----
,.,.
•
-
•
• -..
4.3 .2 SANTIAGO FORMATION
Strata of the Santiago Formation occur in the subsurface at the project site and are assigned a high
paleontological sensitivity based on previous discoveries of important fossil remains in the
Carlsbad area. Although Santiago Formation strata will not be directly impacted by proposed mass
grading activities, it is possible that deeper excavations (i.e., > 15 feet below existing grade)
associated with remediation for contaminated soils may impact these strata.
4.4 RESULTS OF PALEONTOLOGICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
For the proposed Yada Family Trust project, implementation of a paleontological mitigation
program is suggested for all excavations that extend greater than 4 feet below existing grade. The
majority of such excavations will likely relate to remediation of contaminated soils, but may also
include trenching for utilities.
This determination was made based on the moderate paleontological sensitivity assigned to the old
paralic deposits, with the exception of the possibly agriculturally modified upper portion of these
deposits (0-4 feet below existing grade). In addition, excavations extending deeper than 15 feet or
more below existing grade may impact deposits ofthe Santiago Formation (high paleontological
sensitivity) .
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
If the proposed project will require excavations extending greater than 4 feet below existing grade,
it is recommended that the following mitigation measures be implemented in order to reduce
project related impacts to paleontological resources to an insignificant level.
5.1 MITIGATION MEASURES:
I. A qualified paleontologist should attend the pre-construction meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field
techniques, and safety issues. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a
MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology that is experienced with paleontological procedures
and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of San Diego County,
and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor in the county for at
least one year.)
2. A paleontological monitor should be on-site during all earthwork operations that extend
greater than 4 feet below existing grade. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an
individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The
paleontological monitor should work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.)
3. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover them.
In most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some
fossil specimens (e.g., a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage
period. In these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should be allowed
to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely
manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated
mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the site .
Yada Family Trust Project-Paleontological Resource Assessment, January 2016 7
-
• ..
• ...
--
•
•
-
..
..
..
--
4. Fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage should be cleaned, repaired, sorted,
identified, and cataloged as part of the mitigation program.
5. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, should be
deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological
collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the fossils should
be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage.
6. A final summary report should be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation
program. This report should include discussions ofthe methods used, stratigraphic section(s)
exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils .
6.0 REFERENCES
Demere, T.A. 1981. A newly recognized late Pleistocene marine fauna from the City of San
Diego, San Diego County, California. In, P.L. Abbott and S. O'Dunn (eds.), Geologic
Investigations ofthe San Diego Coastal Plain. San Diego Association of Geologists,
fieldtrip guidebook, pp. 1-10.
Demere, T.A. 1983. The Neogene San Diego Basin: A review of the marine Pliocene San Diego
Formation. In., D.K. Larue and R.J. Steel (eds.), Cenozoic Marine Sedimentation, Pacific
Margin, U.S.A .. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Section
28:187-195.
Demere, T.A., and R.S. Boettcher. 1985. Paleontology and biostratigraphy of middle Eocene
nearshore marine sedimentary rocks, Leucadia, San Diego County, California. In, P.L.
Abbott (ed.), On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego
County. San Diego Association of Geologists, fieldtrip guidebook, pp. 49-53 .
Demere, T.A., and S.L. Walsh. 1993. Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego. Prepared
for the Department of Public Works, County of San Diego, 68 p .
Hanna, M.A., 1926. Geology ofthe La Jolla Quadrangle, California. University of California
Publications in Geological Sciences 16:187-246.
Hertlein, L. G. and Grant, U. S., IV. 1939. Geology and oil possibilities of southwestern San
Diego County: California Journal of Mines and Geology 35:57-77.
Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Western San Diego Metropolitan area: Del Mar, La Jolla, and Point Lorna
7.5 minute quadrangles:-California Division ofMines and Geology, Bulletin 200:1-39.
Kennedy, M.P. and G.W. Moore. 1971. Stratigraphic relations of upper Cretaceous and Eocene
formations, San Diego coastal area, California. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Bulletin 55:709-722 .
Kennedy, M.P. and S.S. Tan, 2008, Geologic map ofthe Oceanside 30' x 60' quadrangle,
California: California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, scale I: 100,000.
Kern, J.P. 1977. Origin and history of upper Pleistocene marine terraces, San Diego, California .
Geological Society of America, Bulletin 88:1553-1566.
Yada Family Trust Project-Paleontological Resource Assessment, January 2016 8
..
•
..
• .. ..
-• --
--.... ..
•
•
---
Kern, J.P. and T.K. Rockwell. 1992. Chronology and deformation of Quaternary marine
shorelines, San Diego County, California. In, Quaternary Coasts ofthe United States:
Marine and lacustrine Systems. SEPM Special Publication 48:377-382.
Mihlbachler, M.C. and T.A. Demere. 2009. A new species of Brontotheriidae (Perissodactyla,
Mammalia) from the Santiago Formation (Duchesnean, middle Eocene) of southern
California. Proceedings of the San Diego Society ofNatural History 41: 1-36.
San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM), unpublished paleontological collections data and
field notes .
Tomiya, S. 2013. New carnivorafoms (Mammalia) from the middle Eocene of California, USA,
and comments on the taxonomic status of 'Miacis' gracilis. Palaeontologia Electronica
16(2) 14A: 1-29 .
Valentine, J.W. 1959. Pleistocene molluscan notes. I. The Bay Point Formation at its type
locality. Journal of Paleontology 33:685-688.
Walsh, S.L. 1996. Middle Eocene mammal faunas of San Diego County, California. ln., D.R.
Prothero and R.J. Emry (eds.), The Terrestrial Eocene-Oligocene Transition in North
America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge England, pp. 75-119.
Wilson, K.L. 1972. Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas
quadrangles, San Diego County, California. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of
California, Riverside, 135 p.
Woodring, W.P., and W.P. Popenoe. 1945. U.S. Geological Survey, Oil and Gas Investigations
Preliminary Chart 12.
Yada Family Trust Project-Paleontological Resource Assessment, January 2016 9
-
..
..
•
•
•
•
•
..
• ----.. ..
-
....
..
•
--..
APPENDIX
Yada Family Trust Project-Paleontological Resource Assessment, January 2016 10
I t I t I I I f I • I f
DATE 02/23/15
TIME 15:30:58
NUMBER ---LOCALITY NAME AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
4025 Pacific Coast Plaza
Oceanside San Diego Co. CA U.S.A.
33°10'5111N·-117°20'40"11
San Luis Rey, CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
4026 Pacific Coast Plaza
Oceanside San Diego Co. CA U.S.A.
33°10•57"N·-117°20'24"11
San Luis Rev. CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
4028 Pacific Coast Plaza
Oceanside San Diego Co. CA U.S.A.
33°10'55"N--117°20'341111
San Luis Rev CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
4030 Pacific Coast Plaza
Oceanside San Diego Co. CA U.S.A.
33°10 •54"N--1 17"20'331111
San Luis Rev CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
4031 Pacific Coast Plaza
Oceanside San Diego Co. CA U.S.A.
33°10'5311N--117°201341111
San Luis Rev. CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
4032 Pacific Coast Plaza
Ocean.side San Diego Co. CA U.S.A.
33.10'56"N--117°20'25"11
San Luis Rey, CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
4033 Pacific Coast Plaza
Oceanside San Diego Co. CA U.S.A.
33• 10 '57"N--1 17"20 '33"11
San Luis Rey, CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
4045 Pacific Coast Plaza
Oceanside san Diego Co. CA U.S.A.
33•10 '56"N--1 17"20 '251111
San Luis Rey CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
5468 The Summit at Carlsbad -Tagelus Bed
Carlsbad San Diego Co. CA U.S.A.
33.10'4211N--117°19'20111J
San Luis Rev. CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
5469 The Summit at Carlsbad
Carlsbad San Diego Co. CA USA
33°10'43"N--117°19'19"11
San Luis Rev. CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
5470 The Summit at Carlsbad
Carlsbad San Diego Co. CA USA
33°10'43"N--117°19'16111J
San Luis Rey, CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
5471 The Summit at Carlsbad
Carlsbad San Diego Co. CA USA
33°10'45"N--117.19'18111J
San Luis Rey, CA 1:24000 USGS 1968(1975)
• • I I I J • j l j I I
SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM
DEPARTMENT OF PALEONTOLOGY
LOCALITY LIST
I I I I I I • • a 1 I I I i
PAL120
-ROCK AND TIME UNITS-ROCK TYPE-FIELD NOTES--------------------·COLLECTORS-COMPILED BY-ENTERED BY-DONOR-----------
unnamed unit B.O. Riney, C.P. Majors 10 Jul 1996
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene T.A. Demere 27.Feb 1997
sdst-estuarine H.P. Don Vito 27 Feb 1997
B.O. Riney NB#18:113 114· NB#19:16 17 24 Gatlin Development Company 10 Jul 1996
unnamed unit 8.0. Riney 30 Jut 1996
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene T.A. Demere 27 Feb 1997
sdst-estuarine H.P. Don Vito 27 Feb 1997
B.O. Riney NB#18:130 Gatlin Development Company 30 Jul 1996
unnamed unit B.O. Riney 10 Sep 1996
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene T.A. Demere 27 Feb 1997
sdst-estuarine H.P. Don Vito 27 Feb 1997
8.0. Riney NB#19:37 Gatlin Development Company 10 Sep 1996
unnamed un i t B.O. Riney 11 Sep 1996
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene T.A. Demere 27 Feb 1997
sdst-estuarine H.P. Don Vito 27 Feb 1997
8.0. Riney NB#19:35 Gat I in Development Company 11 Sep 1996
unnamed unit B.O. Riney 14 Aug 1996
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene T.A. Demere 27 Feb 1997
sdst-estuarine H.P. Don Vito 27 Feb 1997
B.O. Riney. Gatlin Development Company 14 Aug 1996
unnamed unit B.O. Riney 16 Sep 1996
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene T.A. Demere 27 Feb 1997
sdst-estuarine H.P. Don Vito 27 Feb 1997
8.0. Riney Gatlin Development Company 16 Sep 1996
unnamed un i t B.O. Riney 26 Aug 1996
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene T.A. Demere 27 Feb 1997
sdst-estuarine H.P. Don Vito 27 Feb 1997
B.O. Rinev. NB#19: 16 17 Gatlin Development Company 26 Aug 1996
unnamed unit R.O. Riney 20 Sep 1996
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene Rancholabrean T.A. Demere 23 Jun 1997
sdst-estuarine H.P. Don Vito 23 Jun 1997
B.O. Riney Gatlin Development Company 20 Sep 1996
unnamed estuarine unit B.O. Riney, G. Calvano, G. Aron 17 Mar 2004
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene B.O. Riney 5 Nov 2004
sdst-estuarine H.P. Don Vito 5 Nov 2004
80R book # 29 pages 28-29 Pacific Properties 17 Mar 2004
unnamed river terrace B.O. Riney, G. Calvano 14 May 2004
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene Rancholabrean 8.0. Riney 11 oct 2004
sl tst-fluvial K.A. Randall 27 Dec 2004
BOR book #29 _pg_s 28-29 Pacific Properties 14 May 2004
unnamed river terrace 8.0. Riney, G. Calvano, H.M. Wagner 12 May 2004
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene Rancholabrean B.O. Riney 11 Oct 2004
sdst-fluvial K.A. Randall 27 Dec 2004
BOR book # 29 pags 28-29 Pacific Properties 12 May 2004
unnamed river terrace G. Calvano 27 Apr 2004
Cenozoic Quaternary late Pleistocene Rancholabrean 8.0. Riney 11 Oct 2004
sltst-fluvial K.A. Randall 27 Dec 2004
BOR book #29 pg 28 Pacific Properties 27 Apr 2004