Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1994-11-09 .' '.-- ,.... . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 9,1994 I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Whittenberg called the Archaeological Advisory Committee Meeting of November 9, 1994 to order at 5:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL Present: Members Aviani, Belardes (5:25 PM), Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, Price, and Unatin (5: 12 PM) Absent: Members Benjamin and Davies. Mr. Whittenberg indicated he had heard from members Benjamin and Davies. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that he had not heard from members Belardes or Unatin. Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director There being no objections, the absence of members Benjamin and Davies was excused. III. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN and VICE-CHAIRMAN Mr. Whittenberg indicated that nominations are now open for Chairman, that the nominations do not require a second, and that upon all nominations for Chairman being received, the nominations would be closed and the Committeemembers would vote for the position of Chairman. He further indicated that the same procedure would be followed for the selection of Vice-Chairman. Member Goldberg nominated Fitzpatrick for the position of Chairman. Fitzpatrick declined due to other job responsibilities. Member Price nominated Hahn. Hahn declined due to personal time constraints. It was the consensus of the Committee to defer this item to the end of the Agenda. Member Fitzpatrick consented to serve as Chairman for the evening. C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\II-09-94 MIN\I.W\II-IIi-'l4 .I . . . " . V. VI. Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Member Hahn requested item VI-4, Receive and File Letter of February 1, 1994 from SHPO re: "Construction of P-195, Bachelor Enlisted Quarters", be removed from the Consent Calendar. MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Hahn to approve the agenda, with the removal of item VI-4 from the Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 AYES: Aviani, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, and Price NOES: None ABSENT: Belardes, Benjamin, Davies and Unatin ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Fitzpatrick asked for oral communications from the audience. There were none. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Receive and File Minutes of City Council Meeting of September 26, 1994 re: Seismic Imaging Survey. 2. Receive and File City Council Staff Report of October 10, 1994 re: Restoration Advisory Board News Release", Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. 3. Receive and Pile City Council Staff Report of October 10, 1994 re: "Action Memorandum News Release - Mercury Removal-Building 68", Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. 5. Receive and File Letter of July 5, 1994 from SHPO re: "Water Booster Station, NWS Seal Beach". 6. Receive and File Letter of July 25, 1994 from SHPO re: "Installation of Cable Track System, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Orange County". C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\II-1I9-94.MfN\I.\VIlI-IIi-'l4 2 . . . " . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 MOTION by Aviani, SECOND by Goldberg to approve the Consent Calendar, with the removal of item VI-4 from the Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 AYES: Aviani, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, and Price NOES: None ABSENT: Belardes, Benjamin, Davies and Unatin Item VI-4. Receive and File Letter of February I, 1994 from SHPO re: "Construction of P-195, Bachelor Enlisted Quarters". Member Hahn asked Mr. Whittenberg when this document was received by the City. Mr. Whittenberg indicated it was provided at the October 19, 1994 Archaeological Advisory Committee Meeting. MOTION by Hahn, SECOND by Aviani to receive and file item VI-4 of the Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED: 6-0-4 AYES: Aviani, Fitzpatrick, Frietze, Goldberg, Hahn, and Price NOES: None ABSENT: Belardes, Benjamin, Davies and Unatin VII. SCHEDULED MATTERS 7. Approval of Minutes: October 19, 1994. Chairman Fitzpatrick asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of October 19, 1994? Mr. Whittenberg reminded members A viani and Frietze that they should abstain since they absent at the October 19 meeting. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, SECOND by Goldberg to approve the minutes of October 19, 1994. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-4-2 C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\II-09-94.MIN\LW\II-16-94 3 . . . " . Archaeological AdV/s01Y Co"ulIittee Minutes November 9, 1994 AYES: Fitzpatrick, Goldberg, Hahn, and Price NOES: None ABSENT: Belardes, Benjamin, Davies and Unatin ABSTAIN: A viani and Frietze 8. DISCUSSION with Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. re: REVIEW OF: Rough Draft "PHASE I -OVERVIEW SURVEY AND PHASE II - ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL and ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION of CULTURAL RESOURCES on the NA VAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH", prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc., June, 1993. Mr. Whittenberg indicated to the Committee that representatives of the Naval Weapons Station and of Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. are present this evening to discuss the Rough Draft "PHASE I -OVERVIEW SURVEY AND PHASE II - ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL and ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION of CULTURAL RESOURCES on the NA VAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH", prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc. (Ogden), June, 1993. He further indicated that the purpose of the meeting is to allow Ogden the opportunity to respond to the concerns of the Committee as set forth in the Committee letter of December 21, 1993. Mr. Whittenberg introduced Lisa Barnett, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, who introduced Commander Steadley and the representatives of Ogden to the Committee, Richard Carrico, Joyce Clevenger, and Andrew Pignolio. Commander Steadley thanked the Committee for their patience in the scheduling of this meeting and briefly reviewed the process which the Station had to deal with in revising their contracts to allow for Ogden to attend this meeting. He further indicated that certain concerns raised in the Committee letter of December 21, 1993 are management issues and should be deferred to a later meeting, as those issues do not concern Ogden. Joyce Clevenger introduced herself, Richard Carrico, and Andrew Pignolio. Each person briefly related their background and professional experience to the Committee. Member Unatin arrived at 5: 15 P.M. Joyce Clevenger further indicated that a resume of each Ogden member present is provided as part of the handout materials being provided to the Committee. She then asked Richard Carrico to discuss in detail the responses to the concerns raised by the Committee in the Attachment to the December 21, 1993 letter of the Committee. C:\WP51\ARCHCOMl\oI\Il-U9-94 MIN\LW\II-16-'l4 4 I . , . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 Member Hahn asked if the Committee will have time to discuss those management issues of the Committee as set forth in the main body of the December 21, 1993 letter? After discussion by the Committee, it was determined to defer the discussion of the management issues to a later time, and to proceed with the discussion of the technical issues with Ogden now. Joyce Clevenger presented a handout prepared by Ogden which discusses point-by-point the concerns of the Committee as set forth in the Attachment to the December 21, 1993 letter. She also indicated that Ogden will be preparing a Revised "PHASE I-OVERVIEW SURVEY AND PHASE 11- ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL and ARCHITECTURAL EVALUA nON l?f CULTURAL RESOURCES on the NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH", which will be provided to the members of the Committee for review and comment, and that the anticipated release of this document will be in January, 1995. Commander Steadley clarified that the Revised document will be reviewed by Naval legal counsel, and that portions of the document which specifically discuss the exact locations of sensitive sites may be removed to comply with provisions of Federal law. In response to a question from Unatin, it was clarified that the entire document, minus portions removed by legal counsel of the Navy, will be provided to the Committee. Member Belardes arrived at 5:25 P.M. Richard Carrico, Ogden, then began to review the Ogden handout prepared to respond to the technical concerns of the Committee, indicating that many of the issues set forth by the Committee reflect a difference among professional archaeologist's regarding survey methodologies and interpretation of the findings at specific locations. 1) The report does not follow "Archaeoloxica1 Resource Manaxement Reports (ARMR): Recommended Conrcnts and Format" recommendations, prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, in particular; a) There is no "Research Design", referencing "Guidelines for Arclweological Research Designs", prepared by the California Oftice of Historic Preservation. A "Research Design" could have focused on the following issues: Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico indicated that "research Design" questions are addressed in Section 6 of the report, which was not initially provided to the Committee, but will be included in the final document for presentation to the Committee. Mr. Carrico further indicated that Federal guidelines also apply to the preparation of the report, which are not in compliance with ARMR C"\WP51\ARCHCOMMIII-1I'l-94 MIN\LW\lI-J6-'l4 5 . . . , . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 guidelines. The final document will be formalized along the ARMR Guidelines to address the Committee's comments. (1) Recent discoveries, accepted by most archaeologists, indicate New World occupation at an earlier date, when ice would have prevented land travel. This has led some 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. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that he does not agree that "most" archaeologists are of this opinion, would feel that "some" agree, along the order to 10 to 15 percent. He explained by use of drawings the geological structure of Hog Island and the fact that the makeup of the stratigraphy of Hog Island is considerably older than the surrounding alluvial deposits. He responded to comments from Fitzpatrick regarding the geological structure of this areas of the Weapons Station and the different soil types present. Mr. Carrico indicated that in his opinion Hog Island may have been eroding for many years, and that the eroded material may be covering cultural sites located along the slopes of Hog Island, now underwater due to rising sea levels. He further indicated that the "Historical and Archaeological Plan (HARP) Plan", also being prepared by Ogden and to be available after Navy review, will deal with the issues of where potential cultural sites may be, the potential importance of those sites, what types of activities could disturb those sites, and the research and testing methodologies which would be most appropriate to utilize in evaluating the potential for sites to exist, etc. The technical report is to completed by January, 1995, with the HARP plan to follow. However, the completion date for the HARP plan is uncertain at this time. Hahn inquired if Ogden has the "1931 Strandt" reports, that she has seen maps from that report indicating 5 separate sites along Anaheim Bay. Joyce Clevenger indicated she has reviewed those reports in the past, but not recently. Her recollection is that a series of articles were written by Strandt, but that a formal report was not prepared. Discussion was held among the Committee and Ogden regarding the accuracy of mapping done in the 1930's compared to today, and the more formal reporting and recording of information conducted presently. Mr. Carrico indicated that C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-O'l-'l4.MIN\LW\II-16-'l4 6 . . . Arclweo!o/:ical Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 in his opinion one of the Strandt sites was on Bolsa Chica Mesa, since in the 1930's, Anaheim Bay extended to Bolsa Chica Mesa and was not developed with Huntington Harbour. (2) 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. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. (3) 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. Ogdcn Responsc: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that this an area where professional practice and interpretation vary. The "+" and "_" years included as part of radiocarbon dating make the information not a s accurate as desired, explaining that radiocarbon dates can have a time variation of 140 to 160 years, which is not important enough to attempt to deal with in time frames of 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. He further stated that, in his opinion, shelliish dating is probably more accurate than obsidian hydration, and by use of drawings and detailed explanation of hydration methodologies, explained why he believes so. Mr. Carrico further indicated that obsidian sourcing will be done as part of the revised report and that the vagaries of hydration methodologies will also be discussed in the revised report. (4) The issue of underwater archaeological survey methods adjacent to Hog Island should be discussed and documentation provided as to why such method was not considered appropriate, if that determination was made. Ogden Rcsponse: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that the "HARP" plan may well discuss this issue. Goldberg asked why not increase the scope of the work contract with Ogden to include this issue? Commander Steadley reviewed the downsizing of the Navy over the past few years, indicating that the demands on funds are becoming more and more difficult to juggle, and C:\WP5l\ARCHCOMM\II-1l9-'l4 MIN\LWIII-IIi-'l4 7 .J . . . Arclwe%ftical Advisory Co"unittee Minutes November 9, 1994 that testing for potential underwater cultural sites absent a "undertaking" or "project" has a greater potential to disturb the extremely sensitive environment of the National Wildlife Refuge, impacting several species of rare and endangered species. Hahn inquired if sonar could be used to locate potential underwater cultural sites. Commander Steadley indicated a major part of his naval experience has been in underwater sonar operations for recovery purposes, and that mud will mask underwater objects which are more than a few feet below the surface from sonar. Current technology does not allow for a method of using sonar, trenching with backhoes would need to be done, which would be extremely damaging to the National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Carrico indicated that the "HARP" plan will be structured to allow for future technology to further detine potential cultural sites within the Naval Weapons Station. b) No information is provided regarding who conducted field work and report preparation, and of their qualifications. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Each of the Ogden representatives reviewed their experience, qualifications, and particular experience at the Naval Weapons Station. c) No illustrations are provided of cultural/historical items recovered. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that all of the items recovered were very common, and none were in very good shape. Hahn inquired as to the potential designation of Hog Island for National Register listing. Clevenger and Carrico indicated that the relatively undisturbed nature of the site and its unusual location may qualify the site for National Register status. Mr. Carrico indicated by drawing the general evaluation process for determining eligibility for National Register listing, and that Ogden is still reviewing that criteria in relation to Hog Island. This issue will be discussed in both the revised document and the "HARP" plan. 2) There is no artifact catalogue presented. This is normally included as an Appendix, and indicates the total number of items recovered. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. 3) There is no discussion as to whether an updated "Site record" has been prepared, which, in the opinion of the Committee, should be done. In C \WP51\ARCHCOMM\II-09-94 MIN\LW\II-16-'l4 8 . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 addition, the 1inal document and any updated site records should be submitted to the Archaeological Information Center at UCLA. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that this will occur once the final document is completed and approved. Hahn asked as to what happened to Site 260, which was indicated in a previous document to potentially extend from Landing Hill, under Seal Beach Boulevard, and onto the Naval Weapons Station? Mr. Carrico indicated that the official site records at UCLA do not indicate Site 260 extending onto the Naval Weapons Station, and therefor will not be shown in that manner in their final report. Site 260 will be shown on their map's as being located across from the Naval Weapons Station on Landing Hill, along with discussion as to the extensive nature of what they feel to be a large site encompassing all of the Landing Hill and related Naval Weapons Station sites, with the identified sites representing concentrations of habitation. The final report will also include a discussion of professional practice/preference regarding interpretation of the cultural resource information compiled form the various sites. 4) 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. A clearly stated conclusion, with supporting facts should be included as the primary result of the research effort. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that National Register eligibility is discussed in Section 6 of the Technical Report, which will further expanded in the final draft technical document. 5) 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. In addition, an inadequate amount of sample material appears to have been collected, in the opinion of the Committee. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that their defined scope of work did not include statistical sampling. He reviewed by drawing the difference between boundary C:\WI'5l\ARCHCOMM\II-ll'l-'l4 MIN\I.Wlll-IIi-'l4 9 .' . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 sampling and statistical sampling, indicating that statistical sampling is primarily utilized when a cultural resource site is slated for destruction as part of a proposed project. b) The testing does not appear to be deep enough, a minimum of three 10 centimeter levels of sterile soil should be encountered before determination of sterile site. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that a color graphic has been prepared by Ogden to more clearly explain their test excavation procedure (Attached to Minutes). In addition Mr. Carrico explained by drawing the methodology utilized and the purpose of using that methodology. c) Maps at a scale of I" = 200' were indicated to be available, but not utilized. Not all maps provide scale or north arrow. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that this comment is very accurate and represents a quality control problem, it will be corrected in the final document. 6) The first sentence of Section 3.1.4. is unclear to the Committee. 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 106 compliance procedure followed for that ongoing project? Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that this comment is most appropriately addressed by the Naval Weapons Station. Commander Steadley indicated that the Station has not always been in compliance with Section 106 in the past, but that all new projects will comply with Section 106. He further indicated that staff at the Station is committed to complying with Section 106 procedures, and that the "HARP" plan will incorporate procedures to ensure compliance as a normal routine of the Station in the future. 7) Section 3.1.5 indicates a "contour method" was used for excavation purposes. The Committee is concerned that this method could lead to a distortion of scientitic results, by including older materials with newer materials, due to varying contour depths at the corners of the test pits. The Committee would prefer the more standard test level method of maintaining "level" test excavations, not contouring. The "stratigraphy" C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\II-O'l-'l4.MIN\L\VIII-lh-'l4 10 .. . . . .-. Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 or "arbitrary level" method, if no stratigraphy is apparent, are acceptable methods. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated by drawing how the "contour" method varies from the "arbitrary" method, and how specific site situations tend to dictate the method to be utilized. He further indicated that the arbitrary method works extremely well in the desert southwest where areas are practically flat. In areas with a slope, the "contour" method, in his opinion is more reflective of how cultural material would have been actually deposited. This is because the earth contours would reflect the general depositional characteristics of the persons residing on the site. 8) Ogden appears to have varied the shell collecting methodology, not only from site to site, but within a single site. Since the various methodologies colors the inteqJretation, 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. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that Ogden was not looking for a statistically valid sample across the site, but was looking to determine site boundaries. In his opinion, the work done to this point in time is sufficient to determine site boundaries for the areas investigated. 9) Section 3.1.6. provides an inadequate discussion of curation procedures, they should respond to Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, guidelines. Ol!den Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that the issue of curation is an ongoing issue and explained the difficulties in finding cllration facilities which can meet all of the applicable federal standards for curation. There may be potential funding for curation facilities through the "Legacy" program, and the City may be in a position to assist the Station in that endeavor. Further discussions would need to occur between the Station and the Committee/City regarding this issue. 10) The document inadequately describes both cultural and historic material by using weight, which can overstate certain occurrences if heavy items, C'\WP51\ARCHCOMM\II-O'l.'l4.MIN\J.W\II-IIi-'l4 II .' . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 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. Ogden Response: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. 11) The discussion regarding shell beads in Section 4.4.2.3. is questionable, since radiocarbon dating of shell artifacts, in the opinion of some members of the Committee, is somewhat questionable. Since the radiocarbon work and the dates as determined from typological analysis of the beads varied widely, the Committee would have preferred to have had hydration and sourcing of the obsidian, which is much more accurate, as additional data to either confirm or refute the other identified dates. Ogdcn Rcsponse: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. Mr. Carrico further indicated that the Chester King method applies well in burial situations, but not as well in non-burial situations. The beads provide minimal information due the few found and the poor condition. 12) The document inadequately describes the literature search methodologies utilized by the consultant and contains no listing of bibliographic documents. 01!dCI1 Responsc: Refer to Attachment to Minutes. This concluded the responses to the Committee of their letter of December 21, 1993. In addition, Mr. Carrico responded to the following concerns set forth in the Committee staff report of N ovem ber 9, 1994: II Why was the site designation for "Site 260/322/1118" revised to "Site 322/1118"? The revised site designation appears confusing. Ogdcn Response: Mr. Carrico indicated, as discussed above, that this was done since Site 260 is not recorded as extending onto the Naval Weapons Station. iii Were all site boundaries determined? Please define boundaries and provide clear, detailed maps of the boundaries of identified sites and survey areas. C"\WP51\ARCHCOMM\11-09-94 MIN\LW\II-IIi.<.J4 12 " . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 Ogden Response: Mr. Carrico indicated, as discussed above, that this will be accomplished as part of the final report, understanding that as technology improves, boundaries identified as part of their report may be modified by future studies which utilize improved research technologies. . Please discuss the rationale and methodology used to determine the number and placement of test units, particularly with regard to Hog Island. Were recent human disturbances, i.e., radio antenna, taken into account? Ogden Response: Mr. Carrico indicated, as discussed above, that this site is identified as a significant site, with potential for National Register listing. He highlighted his previous comments relative to the different geological structures of the area and the impacts of erosion and sea water level rise on the potential for underwater sites to exist at Hog Island. In response to questions from Member Hahn, Commander Steadley indicated that all future construction projects at the Naval Weapons Station will comply with the soon to be adopted" HARP" plan, including the Installation/Restoration activities. He further indicated that all military construction (MILCON) projects now include funding for archaeological assessments and, if necessary, site survey and removal/preservation activities. In regards to the P-195 project, it is proceeding thought he approval process and ongoing discussions are occurring with SHPO. Due to the continuing military cutbacks, it is not clear if the facility will be required. Member Hahn inquired if representatives of Ogden were aware of an unrecorded archaeological site in the vicinity of I/R Site I? She further indicated that a 1985 report by Brock indicated the potential of a site in the same vicinity, but that a site survey was not recorded. Mr. Carrico and Commander Steadley indicated that the scope of Ogden's work did not include this I/R site. Member Hahn indicated she was concerned regarding the potential for I/R restoration activities to impact potential cultural resources at the site. Commander Steadley indicated the "HARP" plan is designed with the potential of this type of situation and would be reviewed prior to restoration activity occurring at I/R Site 1. The Committee thanked the representatives of the Naval Weapons Station and Ogden for attending and presenting the information to the Committee. The Committee especially commended Mr. Carrico for his excellent presentation. C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\II-O'l-94 MIN\I.W\II-16-'l4 13 . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 9. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO STAFF re: STATUS REPORT REGARDING BIXBY OLD RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT Mr. Whittenberg distributed to the Committee excerpts of the Bixby Old Ranch Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, indicating this will be the major agenda item for the Committee to consider on December 7, 1994. He further indicated that a formal staff report regarding this matter will be provided as part of the meeting agenda packet. VID. COMMITTEE CONCERNS Lisa Barnett, Naval Weapons Station, informed the Committee of the potential for ajoint effort by the Station and the City/Committee to obtain funding for the development of "Historic Preservation Week" activities for May 14-20, 1995. She provided a information packet for the Committee's use and consideration. Member Hahn requested that the next agenda include a discussion item regarding the issue of cultural resource management at the Naval Weapons Station. . IX. STAFF CONCERNS None. m. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN and VICE-CHAIRMAN (Continued) Member Goldberg nominated Member Belardes for Chairman, there being no other nominations, a unanimous vote was cast for Member Belardes as Chairman. Member Price nominated Member Fitzpatrick for Vice-Chairman, there being no other nominations, a unanimous vote was cast for Member Fitzpatrick as Vice-Chairman. x. ADJOURNMENT There being no other matters before the Committee, Chairman Belardes adjourned the meeting 7:57 p.m. to Wednesday, December 7, 1994,5:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. . C'\WP5l\ARCHCOMM\II-()q.94 MIN\LW\II-IIi-'l4 14 I" . . . . Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes November 9, 1994 Whittenberg, Secretary Archaeological Advisory CommIttee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee. The Archaeological Advisory Committee Minutes of November 9, 1994 were approved on dA-NVPr'12Y ) B , 19~.s- C:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\II-1l9-94 MIN\LW\II-16-94 15 " " ATTACHMENT TO 11-9-94 ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE MINUTES RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RAISED BY THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CITY OF SEAL BEACH . RE: Initial Draft Report: PHASE I - OVERVIEW SURVEY AND PHASE II - ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION of CULTURAL RESOURCES on the NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH. Prepared by: Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. (Ogden) June 1993 . The following responses related to the archaeological issues raised by the Archaeological Advisory Committee (Committee) regarding Sections 3 and 4 of Ogden's initial draft report f (referenced above). The Committee's concerns were stated in a letter addressed to Navy personnel, dated December 21, 1993. Ogden's responses (in Bold) follow the outline as it was presented in Attachment 1 of that letter: 1) 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: ARMR is used as a guide for Ogden's report presentations. A formalized research design is recommended, not required for testing programs. Ogden's research design. while not formally stated in Section 3 of the report, was presented in Section 6. Pertinent research questions were addressed in Section 6, however, the Committee did not have this section . Ogden Environmental Response to Comments November 9, 1994 Page 1 . for review. The draft document contains the required information, however, the final report will be revised in some aspects of organization to more closely resemble the ARMR recommended format. The final document will be formalized along the ARMR guidelines to address the Committee's comments. (1) Recent discoveries, accepted by most archaeologists, indicate New World occupation at an earlier date, when ice would have prevented land travel. This has led some researchers to theorize that entry into the New World was via a maritime adaptation, 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. It is true that rising sea level and alluvial sedimentation have probably buried archaeological remains in coastal areas and the potential for buried sites is frequently high. Hog Island appears to represent a hill that has been surrounded by Holocene alluvium almost to the point of being buried. . I The geology of the island itself is older than the Holocene and does not consist of Holocene alluvium. Buried sites on the island itself are not likely, due to it's geological makeup. The area surrounding Hog Island, that is covered by Holocene alluvium is, on the other hand, likely to contain buried resources. The current scope of work for Ogden's project at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach (the Station) does not include below tide level investigations to search for buried deposits. Biological constraints are also likely to affect any effort in this regard. (2) 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 {sic} thought to exist. Same response to (1) above. . Ogden Environmental Response to Comments November 9, 1994 Page 2 (3) 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. . Sourcing and hydration of obsidian would not have substantially altered our finding that the site was significant. The presence/absence of these materials indicate that research questions involving exchange can be addressed. Obsidian hydration has a high potential for error and is not firmly linked to absolute chronology. To address the concerns raised, sourcing and hydration will be conducted on those materials large enough in size. Sourcing of chert is problematic at best with highly variable potential for sources including secondary deposits. The report does suggest that most of the chert fits the variability within the Monterey Formation (page 4-41) but point sourcing of this material which occurs in secondary as well as bedrock deposits has not been established as feasible. . (4). The issue of underwater archaeological survey methods adjacent to Hog Island should be discussed and documentation provided as to why such method was not considered appropriate, if that determination was made. Underwater archaeology was not part of the scope of work as required by the Navy's contract. It is unlikely that it would be of any value, however, because recent alluvium in the estuary would obscure any evidence of human activity on the surface. b) No information is provided regarding who conducted field work and report preparation, and of their qualifications. The committee did not have a full document and was supplied with only Sections 3 and 4 for review. Answers to many of the questions raised may be found in other sections that were not reviewed. Section 1, page 1-2 . Ogden Environmental Response to Comments November 9, 1994 Page 3 . . . identities' the project personnel by name and position of responsibility, including tield, laboratory, analyses, report preparation, and management duties. c). No illustrations are provided of cultural/historical items recovered. Unfortunately, unique or diagnostic artifacts were not recovered during the effort and illustrations of common items such as shell remains and lithic debitage were not considered valuable to the data presentation. In response to the Committee's comments, the few items that may provide some information (shell beads and biface fragments) for possible comparative studies that may be done by other researchers, will be reproduced in the tinal document. 2). There is no artifact catalogue presented. This is normally included as an Appendix, and indicates the total number of items recovered. Artifact catalogues for each prehistoric site investigated (CA-ORA-298, f CA-ORA-322/CA-ORA-l,118) has been prepared using standard methods and procedures. The artifact catalogues were not provided in the rough draft because such data banks are not normally edited. Ogden's standard policy is to include the artifact catalogues as Appendices in the tinal document and these Appendices will be referenced within the tinal text. 3). There is no discussion as to whether an updated "Site record" has been prepared, which, in the opinion of the committee, should be done. In addition, the final document and any updated site records should be submitted to the Archaeological Information Center at UCLA. It is Ogden's general policy to provide and submit updated site forms for archaeological sites that we investigate. These are not tinalized until the technica: document passes the tinal review. At that point) the updated site forms are completed, listing all pertinent information, e.g., title of the technical report, curation information, and current condition of the site(s). Ogden Environmental Response to Comments November 9, 1994 Page 4 . The updated site form was not provided in the rough draft because it is not an item that is subjected to review. The final version of the technical report will reference the updated site form and it will be submitted to the Information Center at UCLA. 4). 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. A clearly stated conclusion, with supporting facts should be included as the primary result of the research effort. . Ogden's discussion of National Register eligibility of the sites mentioned above appears in Section 6 of the document. The committee was not provided with Section 6 for review. Ogden concluded that CA-ORA-298 is eligible for the National Register and can provide data with which to answer several research questions (also presented in Section 6). Based on the data obtained during the current project, a determination of National Register eligibility for CA-ORA-322/CA-ORA-l,118 could not be made. Additional work at this site will permit a valid determination of potential i National Register status. Ogden's conclusions and supporting data regarding National Register eligibility of the above mentioned sites is clearly stated in Section 6 of the document. 5). 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. In addition, an adequate amount of sample material appears to have been collected, in the opinion of the Committee. Sampling was defined in the Navy's scope of work and was not intended to be based on a statistical sampling design. Although ideally appropriate, statistically based sampling designs are not commonly used at the testing level. Such sampling designs are more often employed at the data recovery level of investigation. It is acknowledged that the final size of CA-ORA- . Ogden Environmental Response to Comments November 9, 1994 Page 5 .. . 322/CA-ORA-1118 was so large that the sample was not large enough to adequately address internal variability, but it did provide initial data on site integrity and content. b) The testing does not appear to be deep enough, a minimum of three 10 centimeter levels of sterile soil should be encountered before detennination of sterile site. Ogden's program did excavate through three levels of sterile soil in the test units. During the test excavation when sterile soil (devoid of cultural material), was encountered, the entire 10-cm level was excavated and screened. To confirm that the area was indeed sterile, a post hole was excavated in the floor of each test unit to determine if the sterile soil continued. The post bole was excavated for three 10-cm levels beyond the last sterile level within the test unit. At the Committee's suggestion, the methods section will be expanded to provide a more complete record of when sterile soils were encountered. The description of the methods . (Section 3) will be revised to describe this more clearly. 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 maps of 1:200 scale were only available for portions of the base and did not illustrate topographic features. The Committee correctly noted that Figure 4-2 lacks a scale and north arrow. The large size of Figure 4-2 was considered necessary to illustrate the level of detail employed during the testing program. Figure 4-2 will be revised for the final document. 6). The first sentence of Section 3.1.4. is unclear to the Committee. Are there direct impacts from other projects ongoing at the Station, such as the pipeline replacement project discussed on page 4-8. IT so, was a Section 106 compliance procedure followed for that ongoing project? . Ogden Environmental Response to Comments November 9, 1994 Page 6 . " . " Perhaps Ogden's text is unclear on this point. This issue will be addressed . by the Navy for better understanding and clarification. 7). Section 3.1.5. indicates a "contour method" was used for excavation purposes. The Committee is concerned that this method could lead to a distortion of scientific results, by including older materials with newer materials, due to varying contour depths at the comers of the test pits. The Committee would prefer the more standard test level method of maintaining "level" test excavations, not contouring. The "stratigraphy' or "arbitrazy level' method, if no stratigraphy is apparent, are acceptable methods. It is Ogden's position that the goal of excavation when stratigraphy is limited, is to provide equal volumetric samples of material so vertical and horizontal variability can be examined. The excavation of "level" units does not meet the purpose of unit excavation when the surface is sloped (the first levels are often incomplete). The contour method addresses this issue and is widely used in southern California archaeology. It is also more likely to match natural stratigraphy and is less likely to create horizontal mixing. It is Ogden's professional opinion that the use of the . I "contour" method was appropriate and provided a more accurate sample than maintaining "level" test excavations. 8). Ogden appears to have 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. It is not clear how shell collecting methodology varied. Column samples were examined at CA-ORA-298 and CA-ORA-322/1118 and the same methods were used to examine each sample. The sampling does vary from earlier work at CA-ORA-322, and this may be the problem. In preliminary testing programs, column samples are not typically taken and analyzed from each unit at the testing and evaluation level. An extensive program of column sampling is more likely done during data recovery or mitigation . Ogden Environmental Response to Comments November 9, 1994 Page 7 " . . . . . . programS'. The shell and column sample data obtained in Ogden's testing program provided adequate information to evaluate the content of each site investigated. 9). Section 3.1.6. provides an inadequate discussion of curation procedures, they should respond to Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act. guidelines. The question of final curation is not fully resolved at this date. Discussions are on-going with Navy personnel. To date, a final repository for the cultural material from this project has not been identified. The curation issue will be resolved and incorporated into the final document. As mentioned in Section 3.1.6 of the draft version, the artifact collection is temporarily curated at Ogden's cultural resource laboratory. 10). 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. Counts are provided for almost all items with the exception of shell which includes MNI (minimum number of individuals) and unidentified bone. The use of weights as a comparison tool for shell and bone is common practice and accounts for varying degrees of fragmentation. All items are provided in the catalogue. 11). The discussion regarding shell beads in Section 4.4.2.3. is questionable, since radiocarbon dating of shell artifacts, in the opinion of some members of the Committee, is somewhat questionable. Since the radiocarbon work and the dates as determined from typological analysis of the beads varied widely, the Committee would have preferred to have had hydration and sourcing of the obsidian, which is much more accurate, as additional data to either confirm or refute the other identified dates. Shell bead data did not strongly contrast with radiocarbon data, as the temporal assignment of the shell beads was similarly in the Millingstone Ogden Environmental Response to Comments November 9, 1994 Page 8 " . . , . Period, but admittedly somewhat more recent. Shell dating is as problematic as most other radiocarbon dating and appears to be less problematic than obsidian hydration. Shell dates can be affected by certain environmental elements and correction factors have been developed for these effects. As mentioned above, hydration analysis may be attempted on samples of adequate size, but this method is much more problematic and has not been well tied into absolute chronology. Carbon was not available from feature associations and was only recovered in small amounts. Use of charcoal from bulk soil samples may include natural material, represent mixing from bioturbation, and include "old wood." Radiocarbon dating of charcoal samples was not feasible because so little charcoal was recovered. 12). The document inadequately describes the literature search methodologies utilized by the consultant and contains no listing of bibliographic documents. Ogden provided this information in Section 2 and Section 7, respectively. The Committed was not provided these section as part of their review. . I ADDmONAL COMMENTS: -For the final document, Ogden will expand the mapping efforts and will include several of the surrounding archaeological sites listed in the records and literature search. -The Archaeological and Historic Element presented in the City of Seal Beach General Plan will be referenced in the final document. -All the management issues will be explicitly discussed in the Historical and Archaeological Protection (HARP) Plan being finalized Ogden. .' Ogden Environmental Response to Comments November 9, 1994 Page 9