HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1993-11-17
.
.
.
W;l[ ~OPW
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMl\flTfEE MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1993
The Archaeological Advisory Committee met on November 17, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
2. ROLL CALL
Present:
Members Benjamin, Frietz, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price,
and Unatin (5:20 PM)
Absent:
Members Belardes, Cole, and Davies (Belardes excused)
Staff
Present:
Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director
Committee Member Fitzpatrick served as Chairman.
3.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of October 25, 1993
Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked if there were any corrections or additions to the
minutes of October 25, 1993? Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked Member Hahn if the
discussion regarding Hog Island on page 3, paragraph 4, the tirst sentence was
clear? Member Hahn requested the following language replace the first sentence
of paragraph 4, page 3 of the Minutes:
"Member Hahn discussed the importance of the Hog Island site, given her
understanding of the concern's raised in previous archaeological surveys, and felt
that it is not proper for field trips to include the driving of vehicles onto the site.
Persons should be discouraged from visiting the site by vehicle."
Chairperson Fitzpatrick indicated that the word "has" should be deleted from the
first line of paragraph 5, page 3.
C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-17-93 MIN\LW\11-18-Q3
r~
.
.
.
Archaeolo~ical Advisory Committee Minutes
November 17, 1993
MOTION by Price, SECOND by Goldberg to approve the Minutes of October
25, 1993 as revised.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4-0-4-2
Benjamin, Frietz, Goldberg, and Hahn
None
Belardes, Cole, Davies, and Unatin
Fitzpatrick and Price
4. RESIGNATION OF MEMBER COLE
Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Member Cole has submitted a resignation letter,
indicating business commitments do not allow his attendance at the Committee meetings.
Upon acceptance of the resignation, the matter will be placed before the City Council for
appointment of a new member to serve on the Committee.
MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Hahn to accept the resignation of
Committeemember Cole and forward to the City Council for declaring of vacancy and
re-appointment.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
6-0-4
Benjamin, Frietz, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, Price
None
Belardes, Cole, Davies, and Unatin
5. PRESENTATION BY RON BISSELL, RMW PALEO ASSOCIATES
Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Ron Bissell of RMW Paleo Associates has been invited
by the Committee, and has graciously consented, to present information to the
Archaeological Advisory Committee concerning previous archaeological studies prepared
for the Naval Weapons Station. Mr. Bissell assisted in the preparation, or prepared the
following documents relative to the Naval Weapons Station:
a) "Draft Report: Archaeological Resources qI the Seal Beach Naval Weapons
Station, Oran;:e County, California; The Corona Annex, Riverside County,
California; and the Fallhrook Annex, San Diego County, California", RMW
Paleo Associates for Michael Brandman Associates, November 4, 1987.
C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-17-93,MIN\LW\ll-18-93
2
.
.
.
Arcl/(/eological Advisory Commiuee Minutes
November 17, 1993
b)
"Rejponse to Comments on Dr({fi. Repurt: Archaeolop,ical Resources of the Seal
Beach Naval Weapons Station, Orange County, California,' The Corona Annex,
Riverside County, California; and the Fallbrook Annex, San Diego County,
California", RMW Paleo Associates for Michael Brandman Associates, January
25, 1988.
c)
"Master Plan Update, 1988 - Cultural Resources Assessment - Final Report",
RMW Paleo Associates for Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, November 1988.
d)
Site CA-Ora-l118, 01-25-88, Archaeological Site Record.
Mr. Bissell indicated he had been asked by Member Hahn to present his thoughts and
comments on the rough draft "Archaeological, Historical, and Architectural Evaluation
of Cultural Resources on the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach", prepared by Ogden
Environmental and Energy Services, dated June, 1993.
Mr. Bissell briefly reviewed his previous experience as an archaeologist, indicating he
had prepared several reports regarding the Weapons Station in the past. He further
indicated that his comments are based only on those portions of the document provided
to him, which does not appear to be the complete document. Mr. Whittenberg indicated
the Committee has the same information provided to Mr. Bissell. Mr. Bissell indicated
he was aware of that, but that other portions of the document might address some his
concerns. Briefly summarized those concerns are as follows:
1) Other reports he has reviewed by Ogden Environmental and Energy
Services has generally been excellent, however, he has some concerns
regarding this particular document;
2) Time, budget, and other constraints imposed may have impacted the level
of research and the results discussed in the report;
3) The report does not follow "Archaeological Resource Management
Reports <ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format" recommendations,
prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, in particular;
a) There is no "Research Design", referencing "Guidelines for
Archaeological Research Designs", prepared by the California
Office of Historic Preservation. A "Research Design" could have
focused on the following issues:
i) Recent discoveries, accepted by most archaeologists,
indicate New World occupation at an earlier date, when ice
would have prevented land travel. This has lead some
C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-17-93,MIN\LW\11-18-Q3
3
.
Archaeolo~ical Advismy Corrunittee Minutes
November 17, 1993
b)
researchers to theorize that entry into the New World was
via a maritime adaption, traveling along the coast. If so,
alluvial areas (like Hog Island and vicinity) along the coast
may contain deeply buried sites that originated when the
sea level was lower.
ii) Hog Island, and other alluvial areas along the coast, may
not have been an island 15,000 years ago, and therefore
settlements may be deeper beneath the soil that currently
thought to exist.
iii) Certain items discovered at Hog Island, obsidian and chert,
should have resulted in discussion regarding sourcing and
hydration, which would have served as a way of verifying
the radiocarbon dates presented in the document.
No discussion provided of who conducted field work and report
preparation, and of their qualifications.
No illustrations provided of cultural/historical items recovered.
c)
.
Member Unatin arrived. Member Goldberg asked if the ARMR Guidelines are required
to be used by archaeologists in preparing reports. Mr. Bissell indicated that at this time
they are only guidelines. UCLA currently will accept reports which are not prepared in
accordance with the ARMR Guidelines. However, in the future, it is his understanding,
that at some time in the future UCLA will only accept documents prepared in accordance
with the ARMR Guidelines.
Mr. Bissell continued, indicating:
4) There is no artifact catalogue presented. This is normally included as an
Appendix, and indicates the total number of items recovered.
5) There is no discussion as to whether an updated "Site record" has been
prepared, which should be done.
6) There is no conclusion reached as to if any of the sites discussed are
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This
appears as the primary purpose for the evaluation as undertaken in the
first place.
7) The information provided in Section 3.1.3 seems to preclude a valid
statistical sample for the following reasons:
a) No statistical sample summary or discussion as to the validity of
the sample is provided.
b) The testing does not appear to be deep enough, he would prefer a
minimum of three 10 centimeter levels of sterile soil to be
encountered before determination of sterile site.
.
C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-17-93 MIN\J.W\II-IH-CJ3
4
.
Archaeolo}fical Advisory Corrunittee Minutes
November 17, 1993
8)
c) Maps at a scale of 1" = 200' were indicated to be available, but
not utilized. Not all maps provide scale or north arrow.
The first sentence of Section 3.1.4. is unclear in his mind. Are there
direct impacts from other projects ongoing at the Station, such as the
pipeline replacement project discussed on page 4-8. If so, was a Section
I 06 compliance procedure followed for that ongoing project?
Section 3.1.5 indicates a "contour method" was used for excavation
purposes. He felt this could lead to a distortion of scientific results, by
including older materials with newer materials, due to varying contour
depths at the corners of the test pits. He would prefer the more standard
test level method of maintaining "level" test excavations, not contouring.
A search of textbooks available to him did not mention the "contouring
method", that the "stratigraphy" or "arbitrary level" method, if no
stratigraphy is apparent, are acceptable methods.
9)
.
Discussion occurred among members of the Committee and Mr. Bissell as to the
significance of this issue, and how an archaeologist deals with soils that have been
uplifted, folded, and faulted. Mr. Bissell indicated an archaeologist will end up utilizing
his own best guess, in conjunction with other research, to derive the most plausible
scenario for a particular site. Member Frietz indicated it was her understanding that the
Station is considering some actions for preservation of the Hog Island site.
Mr. Bissell continued:
10) Ogden varied the shell collecting methodology, not only from site to site,
but within a single site. Since the various methodologies colors the
interpretation, it is impossible to generalize from the data. The
methodology utilized should have been selected based on questions in the
"Research Design". The document should explain why column samples
were not taken and analyzed from all test pits.
11) Section 3.1.6. provides an inadequate discussion of curation procedures,
they should respond to Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act,
guidelines.
12) The document inadequately describes both cultural and historic material
by using weight, which can overstate certain occurrences if heavy items,
although rare, are a significant portion of the weight of all items
recovered. Each collected item must be included in the artifact catalogue,
discussed above.
13) The discussion regarding shell beads in Section 4.4.2.3. is questionable,
since radiocarbon dating of shell artifacts, in his opinion, is somewhat
questionable. Since the radiocarbon work and the dates as determined
.
C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-17-93 MIN\LW\II-I~-Q3
5
.
.
.
Archaeolol:ical Advis01Y Committee Minutes
November 17, 1993
from typological analysis of the beads varied widely, he would have
preferred to have has hydration and sourcing of the obsidian, which is
much more accurate, as additional data to either confirm or refute the
other identified dates.
This concluded Mr. Bissell's comments. Member Unatin inquired what Mr. Bissell
would do with his comments. Mr. Bissell indicated they are for the use of the
Committee, he will not be preparing any formal comments to the Weapons Station or
Ogden Environmental. In response to a question from Member Goldberg, Mr. Bissell
discussed in more detail his previous involvement with archaeological research efforts
at the Weapons Station and discussed some current research efforts.
Mr. Bissell indicated that he was aware that funding for the preparation of "Historic and
Archaeological Resources Protection Plans" (HARP Plans) at various naval facilities in
California has recently been granted. He was not aware of funding provided for the Seal
Beach Naval Weapons Station.
Member Unatin inquired if underwater archaeological research would be considered
appropriate for the Hog Island area, given the previous discussion? Mr, Bissell
indicated, in his opinion, that would be appropriate, but is costly, and the Federal
requirements are based on "funding being available".
Member Hahn asked if radiocarbon dating of bone is accurate. Mr. Bissell indicted it
is. She also inquired how best to approach the Navy regarding the potential of
archaeological sites which may be at depths greater than generally thought. Mr. Bissell
indicated that the cost of that type of analysis almost precludes testing. Those concerns
are most appropriately dealt with by having a qualified archaeological monitor present
when soil disturbance at a depth greater than 30" occurs.
There being no other questions of Mr. Bissell, Chairperson Fitzpatrick thanked Mr.
Bissell on behalf of the Committee for his time in discussing this matter with the
Committee.
6. REVIEW OF Rough Dmft "ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL and
ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION of CULTURAL RESOURCES on the NAVAL
WEAPONS STA TION, SEAL BEACH", prepm'ed by Ogden Environmental and
Energy Services, Inc., June, 1993.
Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked if there were any comments on the referenced document.
Members of the Committee discussed the preparation of a response letter to the Naval
C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-17-Q3 MIN\LW\II-18-Q3
6
.
.
.
Arcl/{/e()l()~ical Advisory Committee Minutes
November 17, 1993
Weapons Station, incorporating Mr. Bissell's comments. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he
could prepare a "Draft Response Letter" for consideration by the Committee at the next
meeting. There being no objections, Chairperson Fitzpatrick requested the draft letter
to be prepared by staff.
7. COMMITTEE CONCERNS
A. Review of Draft "Letter of Appreciation Re: Field Tl"ip, Naval Weapons
Station", and authorization fOl' Chairperson to Sign Letter.
Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked if there were any modifications felt necessary to
the proposed letter by members of the Committee. Member Benjamin suggested
the letter propose a meeting date with the Navy and representatives of Ogden
Environmental for mid-January, 1994.
MOTION by Benjamin, SECOND by Hahn to revise the proposed letter as
suggested by Member Benjamin, and authorize Mr. Whittenberg to sign the letter
on behalf of the Committee.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
7-0-2
Benjamin, Frietz, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn,
Price, and Unatin
None
Belardes, and Davies
NOES:
ABSENT:
B. Review of Draft "Letter to AI'chaeoIogical Consultants - Conduct with
Representatives of Naval WeHpons Station", and authorization for
Chairperson to Sign Letter.
Chairperson Fitzpatrick asked if there were any modifications felt necessary to
the proposed letter by members of the Committee. Members Goldberg, Unatin,
Benjamin and Hahn felt the letter was too strong. Members Fitzpatrick, Frietz,
and Price felt the letter was acceptable. Member Unatin suggested amendments
to the paragraph 3, sentence I, to read as follows:
"The Committee wishes to reinforce the position
that the City's archaeological consultants are guests
of the Committee and of the Weapons Station, since
it is a federal facility and outside the regulation of
the City."
C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-17-93 MIN\LW\II-IH-93
7
.
.
.
Archaeological Advisory Conunittee Minutes
November 17, 1993
Member Hahn suggested the words "deeply" and "and demeaning" be deleted
from paragraph 2, sentence 1.
MOTION by Benjamin, SECOND by Hahn to revise the proposed letter as
suggested above, authorize Mr. Whittenberg revise the letter in accordance with
the motion, and authorize Chairperson Fitzpatrick to sign the letter on behalf of
the Committee.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
7-0-2
Benjamin, Frietz, Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn,
Price, and Unatin
None
Belardes, and Davies
NOES:
ABSENT:
C. Naval Weapons Station - National Historic Presel'vation Act: Section 106 and
Section 110 provisions and compliance issues.
D. Naval Weapons Station - Applicability of "Archaeological Element of the City
of Seal Beach" provisions.
E.
Naval Weapons Station - Installation Recovcl'y (ffi) PI'ogram and
undergl'ound tank removal program and a1'chaeological issues.
Mr. Whittenberg that due to the lateness of the hour, he would be willing to
prepare draft comments regarding items 7C, 70, and 7E above, and incorporate
those into the response letter regarding the Rough Draft "Archaeological,
Historical and Architectural Evaluation (?f Cultural Resources on the Naval
Weapons Station, Seal Beach", prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy
Services, Inc., June, 1993. The combined comment letter would be reviewed by
the Committee at its next meeting.
There being no objections of the members of the Committee, Chairperson
~ Fitzpatrick so ordered.
8. STAFF CONCERNS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Committee adjourned at 7:00 p.m., to 5:00 p.m., Monday, December 13, 1993.
C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-17-93 MIN\I.W\II-18-CJ3
8
.
Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes
November 17, 1993
Irman,
Archaeological Advisor~
/ /I#e Whittenberg, Secretary
L/ Archaeological Advisory Committee
Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee.
The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of November 17, 1993 were approved on _
n~c )"3 ,1993.
.
.
C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-17-93 MIN\I.W\II-I~-CJ3
9