Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1997-08-06 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCI-IAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1997 CALL TO ORDER Mr. Whittenberg called the meeting to order at 5.07 P.M in the City Council Chambers ROLL CALL Present. Members Goldberg, Johnston, Willey (5 '19 PM), and Young Absent: Member Fitzpatrick Staff Present Lee Whittenberg, Development Selvices Director . Mr. Whittenberg informed the Committee that Member Fitzpatrick had previously indicated he would be out of the area on business Member Willey had called and she was running late MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Young to excuse the absence of Member Fitzpatrick MOTION CARRIED 3-0-2 AYES NOES ABST AIN ABSENT Goldberg, Young, and Johnston None None Willey, FItzpatrick SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON Mr. Whittenberg, indicating the Committee had been reconstituted to a five-member committee, said it was necessary to select a Chair and Vice Chair Nomination by Member Young to nominate Sonia Johnston as Chairperson . Nomination by Member Johnston to nominate Bruce Fitzpatrick as Chairman C \My DOClII11Il1l1\\ARCIICot...IMIOIl.OG.97 l\hnuh:\ docILWIOll.211.97 Archaeolo[!.lcal AdV/sOlY Conmllttee Regular Meetlllg Mlllules AII[!.lIst6, 1997 . There were no other nominations There were 2 votes for Member Johnston There was I vote for Member Fitzpatrick. Member Johnston is now Chairperson. Nomination by Goldberg to nominate Bruce Fitzpatlick as Vice Chairman. There were no other nominations. The vote was unanimous for Member Fitzpatrick to be Vice Chairman APPROVAL OF AGENDA Member Goldberg requested items # I and #2 be removed from the consent calendar for separate consideration A person in the audience requested item #4 be pulled MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Young to approve the Agenda., removing Agenda Items 1,2, and 4 for separate consideration MOTION CARRIED 3-0-2 . AYES' NOES' ABSTAIN ABSENT' Goldberg, Young, and Chairperson Johnston None None Willey, Fitzpatrick ORAL COl\1l\1UNICA TIONS Chairperson Johnston asked for oral communications There were none. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Goldberg; SECOND by Johnston to approve the Consent Calendar, removing Agenda Items 1,2, and 4 tor separate consideration 3 Receive and File Letteril'om Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, dated June 19, 1997. 5 Receive and File Al1icle: "Space Age Archaeology", Scientific American, August 1997,65 pp 6. Receive and File Article "Digs Without Digging' Exploring Archaeological Sites with Geophysical Techniques", Geotimes, November 1996, pp 17 - 19 . 08.06.97 Milllllc\ doc 2 Archaeological AdvISory Conmllttee Regular Meell11g MlIIlI1es AllgIIs16, 1997 . 7 Receive and File Article. "What Environmental Geophysics Can Do", Geotimes, May 1995, pp 15 - 17 MOTION CARRIED' 3-0-2 AYES: NOES. ABSTAIN ABSENT Goldberg, Young, and Chairperson Johnston None None Willey, Fitzpatrick The following items were considered separately 1. Receive and File Staff Memorandum "Archaeological Resources Protection Plan - Decommissioning of the Research, Testing and Evaluation Area, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, CA", prepared by Battelle and Foster Wheeler Environmental corporation, dated March 1997 [Contl11ued fi'om June 4, 1997] . Mr. Whittenberg indicated this item had been on the Committee's agenda for several meetings It was on the June 4111 agenda but the Committee was unable to meet due to lack of a quorum The document's initial draft was prepared in October 1996 The Committee reviewed it and provided comments to the Navy Staff felt the concerns of the Committee had been addressed in this document It was then placed back on the Consent Calendar in accordance with administrative directives The Committee has removed it from the Consent Calendar to take further action Member Goldberg said she wanted to make cel1ain the Committee felt satisfied with the answers to the questions and asked if there is any more the Committee can do? She felt they should make a point of inviting Lisa Bosalet, of the Naval Weapons Station, to come to meetings when the Committee is well on the way to completing its review of the Hellman project. Mr Whittenberg said in its review of the final document, staff felt the comments and concerns expressed in the Committee's letter had been adequately addressed in the document At this point, he did not know if the Committee could intluence the contents of that document because they were asking for comments in March and it's now August They have probably concluded that contract However, if this Committee teels additional concerns need to be addressed, a letter could be prepared, sent to the Navy and see what happens Member Young said she had not had time to review the document, and could it be discussed agam . Mr Whittenberg said if there's a previously considered item that the Committee wants to reconsider then it should be brought up under a Committee Concern at the end of a meeting. The item would appear on the next Agenda 08.06.97 MJlllIlll~ doc 3 Archaeological Adl'lsOIY Conmllttee Ue[!.u!ar Meell11g !vllllllles Auglls16, 1997 . Member Goldberg said this matter is an overlap with #2. She felt the Committee would like to do a walkover tour and would like to see the aerial photos. Mr Whittenberg suggested that the end of a meeting the Committee could consider when to do that or they could do it as pmt of item 2 He suggested they might want to do this in October. Between now and the 1 \1 of September there is an opportunity to hold additional public input meetings on the Research Design, if detennined appropriate. In late August the Committee will deal with the FELR on the Hellman Ranch project. October would be most appropriate to have the Navy come down tor a presentation. Mr. Whittenberg indicated if the Committee had no other concerns regarding Item 1 or 2, it would be appropriate to receive and file those matters 2 Receive and File Letter fi"ol11 Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, dated June 19, 1997 MOTION by Johnston SECOND by Goldberg to receive and File Consent Calendar Item 1 and 2. MOTION CARRIED 3-0-2 . AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN. ABSENT: Goldberg, Young, and Chairperson Johnston None None Willey, Fitzpatrick 4. RECEIVE AND FILE - Appendix C, "Regional Ethnographic Summary", by Henry C Koerper, Ph D , in Newp01i Coast Archaeological Proiect - Proiect Background and Research Design, prepared by the Keith Companies, 1991 Mr Whittenberg indicated this report was provided to the Committee as an information item, as the regional ethnographic summary contained general information that would be beneficial to the Committee . Reg Clewley * 945 Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach Mr Clewley said the report was long on paper and shOJi on substance He felt the Committee was getting inundated with paper and velY little real information He enumerated on tattoos and birth sauna procedures. Mr Whittenberg intermpted to note that this document was prepared in 1991 for a project within another City. The CIty is not a process to change the document, it is just being provided for intormation Mr. Clewley indicated he felt the Committee was getting inundated with paper, and velY little real information He continued to review various pages of the document He said "Page 26. This is the one that really made me choke ... You've only got three people here who are on the Committee I don't know that this Committee as the amassed body of knowledge to be able to sift through all this material appropriately" 08.06-97 M1I11111l~ doc 4 ArcJweolo1!,lcal AdwsOlY Conmllttee Re[!.1I1ar Mt.'ell11g MlIIlIles AugllS16, 1997 . Member Willey arrived at 5: 19 PM Member Goldberg said, "I resent that I really do" Mr. Clewley continued about page 26 and about taboos, noting it said, "These Indians have many ridiculous superstitions ." He felt the aliicle was redundant. He repeated his comment that he didn't think the Committee would be able to analyze the vast amount of paperwork, especially since the Committee is downsized. We are looking for a cleared picture of what is out there, there are dissenting views on the existing conditions that are out there. Mr. Whittenberg inten'llpted, indicating the repOli being discussed has no specific dealings with the Hellman project, it is a report prepared for a project in Newport Beach, and no bearing on what mayor may not be on the Hellman Ranch property. There were no other comments on Item 4 on the Consent Calendar MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Young to Receive and File Item #4 MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1 . AYES. NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT Goldberg, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Johnston None None Fitzpatrick SCHEDULED MATTERS 8. Approval of Minutes Continued Meeting of April 30, 1997 [Continued fi'om June 4, 1997] Member Goldberg corrected page 7 Change "was go" to "would go" MOTION by Willey, SECOND by Goldberg to approve the Minutes of April 30, 1997 as corrected MOTION CARRlED AYES NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT. 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 Willey, Goldberg None Chairperson Johnston FitzpatrIck 9 Approval of Minutes Meeting of May 14, 1997 [Continued fi-om June 4, 1997] . 08.06-97 MlIIlIlc\ doc 5 . Arclw('olo[!.lcal Advl.\Ory Conl/lllttee U('gular Meelll1[!. MIIIUles AugUS16, J 997 Member Goldberg corrected page 7, line 6. She said the first paragraph under the EQCB member made a statement, should be "Do not make a statement". MOTION by Willey; SECOND by Goldberg to approve the Minutes of May 14, 1997 as con-ected. MOTION CARRIED AYES NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT 3-0-1-1 Goldberg, Willey and Young None Chairperson Johnston Fitzpatrick 10. Approval of Minutes Meeting of May 21, 1997 [Continued from June 4, 1997] MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND by Willey to approve the Minutes of May 2], ] 997. . MOTION CARRIED AYES. NOES ABSTAIN' ABSENT. 3 - 0 - 1 - 1 Goldberg, Willey, and Chairperson Johnston None Young Fitzpatrick 11. REVlEW and CONSIDERATION of "A Research Design for the Evaluation of Archaeological Sites Within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area", prepared by KEA Environmental, dated July 24, 1997. Mr Whittenberg this document was previously provided to the Committee, and described the process and the time-line to the Committee and audience A public COITunent period is mandated by the General Plan of thirty days, and that period is from August 1 to September 1. Upon completion of the comment period, the document is scheduled to be presented to the City Council on September 22 If the schedule is not met, the matter would be pushed back to the following City Council meeting He provided the Committee with a list of Native Americans to whom the document had been mailed. Staff noted KEA was asked to be present this evening to give a brief presentation on their approach and methodology Additionally, the Committee was provided with a memorandum containing a number of comments and concerns from staff on the document; it was provided to KEA also Jamie Cleland * KEA EnvironmentaL San Diego Jamie Cleland ofKEA introduced himself as the principal investigator on the Hellman Ranch. archaeological investigations With him was Andy York, a field director of the project and major author of the document under consideration . 08-06-97 MlIllltll\ doc 6 /Jl'clweologlcal Adl'lYOIY Conmllttee Re[!.ular Meell11g MI1IIIles rlugllsl 6, 1997 . Document Goals Mr. Cleland said KEA was present to share their views on the Hellman Ranch sites and on what they feel needs to be done to adequately evaluate them They welcomed comments. He began by discussing the goals of the document and the overall goals of the evaluation It's an evaluation program designed primarily to determine whether the sites meet the criteria of importance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or if they qualifY as eligible for the National Register under the National Historic Preservation Act . To do this, KEA has to determine whether the sites can address important regional research questions It is not necessary to identifY evelY cultural feature at the site, if a site can be shown to have important information on only one research question, then technically it would qualifY as an important site KEA does want to adequately describe the basic parameters of the site --- the boundaries, the depth, the age, the integIity, the estimate of artifacts of the assemblage composition They do want to identify the significance of the sites to Native Americans To do that, KEA must conduct an interview program with cultural leaders They also have to look, archaeologically, at materials that are there, with particular reference to burials and other items that might have a high cultural or sacred significance KEA also wants to develop enough information to assemble a mitigation plan This requires KEA identifY the values that are present --- the archaeological values and the Native American values KEA doesn't do this as pure archaeological research It must be conducted within the bounds of CEQA and the National Historic Preservation Act. KEA does not see this as a minimal testing program designed only to identifY the depth of the site They must go beyond that. KEA does not see it as the last word on the sites. Those sites that are found to be significant would be subject to mitigation program, should the project proceed and the sites could not be avoided Andy York spoke about the sites by showing the pI aImed construction areas on a map He then spoke about the background on the property to this time to gain context" on what KEA is proposing to do in their testing program. The first archaeological work on Landing Hill was done in 1954 - 1955 by Peter Redwine He identified ten shell middens along the top and sides of the hill and designated them sites LH-1 through LH-1O He also did excavations at four of the sites, including two that will be dealt with during this project In 1969 the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, based on Redwine's documentation, submitted official site forms to the State Clearinghouse at UCLA UCLA assigned the sites the official numbers of ORA-256 through ORA-265 Since that time the propeliy has been completely surveyed on four separate occasions During two of the surveys, some sub-surface testing was done. LSA conducted a testing program in 1990 that was truncated in the middle, with no report being completed There was also a fairly extensive backhoe-trenching program conducted by SRS in 1981 . One major problem facing archaeologists working on the site is that Redwine's original topographic map of his sites was never published Archaeologists have had to rely on an unscaled, schematic map that was submitted with the original PCAS site forms Another problem is that the base maps on file at UCLA show that some of Redwine's sites, which are actually a part of the project area, are shown completely outside the project area to the north This is incorrect, but it has created a lot of confusion as to which sites are which --- and over 08-06-97 M1I11111l\ doc 7 Arclweologlcal Acil'/sOIY Comnllttee Re[!.lIlar Meell11g MlIIules AlIglIst 6, 1997 . how many sites are actually within the project area Fortunately, Redwine's original map does exist, it was found by SRS during their research tor the EIR. It clearly shows the locations of Redwine's sites in relation to the topography and various roads in the area SRS has taken everyone else's archaeological maps, re-scaled them, and overlaid them onto this map This shows all the dense shell deposit recorded on the property and corresponds quite closely to the sites recorded by Redwine. Now KEA has a good idea of what was recorded by Redwine and what their original designations were KEA's approach to preparing the Research Design was to review the existing documentation and then to go into the field to verifY the information on the ground. They found the dense midden despots were where Redwine had mapped them They also verified that they do seem to be surrounded by sparser scatters of shell that Dr Stickel observed when he proposed expanding the site boundaries . In summary, there are a total offive (5) relatively dense shell middens at ORA 260, 261, 262, 263 and 264. There are also five (5) additional lighter shell scatters at ORA 850, 851, 1472, 1473 and fonner-ORA 262 now called Area 0 Although the level of documentation of previous work is somewhat uneven, KEA finds there's a lot of useful information. Redwine made a lot of pretty sophisticated observations on site constituents. His testing and subsequent testing by SRS has given KEA an idea of how deep the sites are - about 60 to 80 centimeters Gary Stickel's work with ERA also provides detailed information on surface density and surface constituents at the sites From this work and KEA's own observations they feel they have a good basis from which to proceed Mr Cleland next spoke on KEA's plan to proceed He talked about several research questions they are going to address in the evaluation program. They tried to emphasize "big picture" type questions rather than questions that are oflocal interest or questions which might not have a general relevance . The first topic is the general relationship of environmental change to cultural change This is an area archaeologists have been debating in Southern California since the 1940's. In the past ten years more sophisticated approaches to environmental reconstruction have been developed From the existing documentation, it appears there are at least three (3) episodes of potentially significant environmental change that might have affected the Native American groups that inhabited the Hellman Ranch property since the end of the Ice Ages. The first involves the establishment, and subsequent degradation, of the coastal lagoon systems. These lagoons formed the basis of Native American subsistence By about 3000 BP they began to silt in significantly, reducing the quality of the resource base The second potential episode, less well established, dates to about 3600 BP and is based on a pollen record from the San Juaquine marsh in Newport Bay It appears there may have been an increase in effective fresh water. This corresponds with some similar changes tound in the interior areas The big question is how much those changes really affected the California coast The third episode, discovered within the last four to five years, has been a good bit of evidence for very extensive and severe droughts throughout Southern California between 800 and 1000 years ago These appear to 08-06-97 M1I11111l\ doc 8 Archat'ologlcal AciVlsOIY Comnllttee Reglllar Meell11g MlIIlIles AllgIIs16, 1997 . have created substantial stress on cultural groups at that time KEA thinks it's a mistake to tie all cultural change too closely to the environment Therefore, KEA's second topic deals with cultural evolution in general. To look at ways that internal cultural dynamics are affecting cultural change --- as well as elements from outside the system KEA is looking a population growth as one of those dynamics. The hot topic in archaeology now is resource intensification. How groups broadened their resources to accommodate population growth. A third area is the development of increased cultural complexity among hunter-gatherers in coastal situations. The third general research topic has to do with the arrival of the Takic speaking groups on the coast When did this happen? Was it a slow process? Did it occur at a time of increased cultural stress? To address those types of questions, KEA will determine what kind of data are in the sites The field program includes four basic elements 1. A close interval survey of the sites to re-establish the areas of the dense deposit They would flag those KEA would identifY any surface artifacts seen at that time 2 Remote sensing KEA's first eftoli would be to use ground-penetrating radar. This would be applied to both the dense and non-dense areas in the sites It has been useful in the past to identifY historic period graves in Old Town San Diego --- these were beneath pavement KEA would tlY it out on potential features that have been identified through the infrared photography program that Dr Stickel reported on They would look at the historical aerial photographs that were taken in the 1920's forward. They would look to see ifany of those features con-espond with any historic features . 3 The use of shovel test pits These are fairly small but carefully excavated test units KEA would use them to determine the bounds of the sub-surface deposit, to determine if there's any sub-sUlface potential in any of the non-dense areas, to ground-truth findings of potentially shallow features fi-om the ground-penetrating radar (such as fire hearths) KEA is planning to do shovel test pits at twenty (20) meter intervals across the north and south axes of the sites KEA would save some back as a contingency to address specific things such as ground-penetrating radar anomalies KEA has a total program of approximately 110 of those in the document After submitting the document, KEA found out, through Mr Whittenberg's comments, that site 1473 would be aftected KEA did not include that in it's program and the program will need amending to address 1473 if, in fact, it will be affected by the project 4 A fourth phase will be excavation of one-meter test units, designed to reach the bottom of the cultural deposit in the deepest areas It will also be focused on sampling the site's aliitact content It will ground truth some of the larger GPR anomalies, ones that are expected to be deeper Both with the test excavation units and the shovel test pits, . 08-06-97 lvhllllle~ doc 9 . Archaeolo[!.lcal AdvIsory Comnllttee Rl'glllaf' Meell11g Mlllutes AlIgllSl 6, 1997 all the backfill would be screened through 1/8" screen (water screening) In the case of the test excavation units KEA would do, in addition, a 1/16" mesh screening, a column sample from a sample of the units Not every unit but those in paiticularly productive areas. We expect to have a total of 45 of those excavation units and probably one or two more if KEA has to include 1473 The Research Design gets into the technicalities of the analysis which, for purposes of time, will be skipped over now The report will follow State guidelines for archaeological resource management reports. KEA would include an evaluation on the signiticance of site and recommendations for any further work that KEA thinks ought to be done Mr. Whittenberg said he would like to walk through his memorandum, dated August 6, 1997, and discuss the major issues which statrs teels need further explanation in the document. Staff went through this document and gave 36 areas of comments in the document He did not discuss each one . . 08-06-97 MlIllltc~ doc Item 1 - Page 1. There is a sentence discussing lower density shell scatter, indicating that this is, in some cases, recorded as an archaeological site Sometimes it's an area that is unreported or dismissed as background noise. Staff is asking if there are any criteria when lower density shell scatter is considered background noise versus being considered part of an archaeological site? Staff feels there should be discussion if there's a difference among expelis on this. 2. Page 7 There is a discussion on pre-excavation agreements between the property owner and the Most Likely Descendent. The information indicates the City would be a paliy to that agreement This has not been finally determined and the City Attorney is still reviewing the issue. Staff is commenting at this time that the City may not be a party to such an agreement, it is to be determined. 3 Page 8. There is a discussion on Holocene time periods, Pleistocene time periods, and the Altithermal time period Staff is suggesting KEA insert an explanation of how many years ago those periods of time 4 Page 9 There's a discussion on Regional Pre-History that also discusses the medieval climatic anomaly and the middle ice age. Staff suggests presenting a table at that point, which puts the larger geologic time periods and these more recent periods of time, and matches those up to the Millingstone time period and those types of periods that the Committee is more familiar with The time periods must be made relevant to what is being discussed 5 Page 12 and 13 They mention a number of areas surrounding the City of Seal Beach, the Hellman sites, where they have reviewed documents One area not 10 . . . 08-06-97 MlIllIlll~ doc Archaeological AdV/sOIY Comnllttee Re[!.lIlar A1eel111g Mmules AllglISl 6, 1997 mentioned in the report is the Naval Weapons Station. Staff wanted to be sure that there are a number of sites on that property that have been evaluated. Some of the sites may still be in the evaluation process This should be called- out in the repOli 6. Page 18. This goes to Mr Cleland's comment about Ora-1473 The initial indication from the project proponent, when that site was recorded and staff discussed it with them, was that the project itself would not impact that site. There would be no grading in that area for the golf course or the wetlands It's at the far West end of Gum Grove Park. On further evaluation, the applicant said it would make sense to have that site investigated because the final design plans aren't set at this point. If that site were to be impacted, it should be evaluated now This site needs to be included in the evaluation 7. Page 20 There's a discussion on shell fragments per square meter This goes back to Mr Whittenberg's tirst comment A professional standard should fuliher describe a shell scatter area to distinguish background noise from a site 8. Page 23. This addresses Mr York's comment on site 262, shown on the UCLA maps as being oft'the project site. Staff indicates it's quite clearly on the site The UCLA maps seem to be off for some reason. Staff asks if this is something KEA will attempt to correct as part of the documentation they provide to UCLA when they provide their final reports 9. Page 27. There is discussion on veliical stratigraphy on the sites at Ora -264, 260 and 263. Staff asks that they provide discussion on what the importance of that is Simply saying, "it's there" doesn't mean a lot It should be "beefed up" to indicate what archaeological impOliance this has to the analysis on the sites 10. Page 37 There is a sentence that states "Contact with Native American groups "and then it goes into a discussion on the languages used by the Native American groups He thought he knew what "contact" means but staff asked them to explain fiu1her He assumed it meant when contact was made by Spanish explorers, but this was not clarified 11. Page 39 There is a sentence that talks about the languages used at that time The sentence is difficult to understand and staffis asking it be clarified 12 Page 41 There is a sentence that reads "While not essential for a finding of site significance, the presence of relatively undisturbed deposits is an important aspect of the site's research potential". Staff thinks there needs to be an explanation as to why a disturbed site may still be important II . . 20 . 08-06-97 M1I11111l~ doc Archaeological AdvIsory Committee Regular A1eel111g lv/mutes AlIgllS16, 1997 13 Page 42. There is discussion on disk plowing, leading to "veliical patterning in the distribution of artifacts" Staff requests a source of this information be provided, also an explanation of "vertical patterning". How does this occur during the plowing process? Also, does this plowing do something regarding the horizontal spreading of ruiifacts? 14. Page 43 There is a discussion on how "diffuse scatter" would be evaluated in determination of site boundaries. Staff asks they provide more discussion on the criteria they will be using in trying to determine whether or not a spare or diffuse shell scatter is background noise or part of a site 15 Page 43 There is discussion of "rough veliical super positioning" Staff asks for clarification 16 Page 43. A statement says "It's critical to make a thorough attempt to identify as high a fraction of extant burials as possible during the testing phase" Staff asks KEA to provide additional discussion on how the thorough attempt will be made. 17 Page 44 This discusses the sensing type of programs being proposed Staff feels there should be discussion on where those programs have been used in the past by the firm they're suggesting, how successful they have been and if the site's they were used at were sites that are fairly comparable to the Hellman sites 18. Page 46 This goes back to the comment on shell scatter and background noise There's a discussion the boundaries of the shell concentrations wi1\ be pin flagged. Staff asks KEA define where they will make that mark, as opposed to determining what area beyond it might be background noise area 19 Page 46 There's a discussion on shovel test probes, indicating they wilI be done on the N01ih-Sollth axis of each of the sites Staff was unclear on whether KEA would use a N011h-South axis of the sites as they have determined through their pin flagging program or if it's going to be using the North-South axis that Dr. Gary Stickle used on his site surveys Staff is requesting clarification on which axis KEA will be using Page 47 There's a table that walk through each of the sites and indicates how many shovel test probes, and how many text excavation units would be proposed at each site Staff suggests KEA place a couple of extra columns in that table which indIcates which percentage of the site area., as defined as "dense" and "spru-se", would actually be tested by each of those methods So this would give a better tee I on their major emphases is on one site as opposed to another by the percentage of area they are proposing to test. 12 Archaeological Advisory Comnllttee Re[!.lIlar Ueell11g Mlllules AU[!.IIS16, 1997 . 21 Page 48. There's discussion on coastal obsidian Stafffeels there may be other types of obsidian found in this area and if that other type is found in this investigation what significance would that have? 22 Page 48. There's a discussion on the number of identified species and minimum number of individuals as part of the final analysis. Staff requests KEA explain fUlther what the significance those two types of classifications of investigation are --- so there's a clear understand of what they are proposing to do there 23. Page 49. There's an extensive discussion on flake stone analysis, which discusses cores, unifaces, bifaces, debitage and varia. Staff suggests KEA provide sketches of those type artifacts so people have an idea of what they area There would be a better teel for what type of objects they would be looking tor . Mr Whittenberg said that staff feels the document is a good document that is well structured and makes a very clear presentation on what their goals are. It identifies the methodologies that they would propose to answer their research questions. Staff compared KEA's document to the State guidelines and feel it addresses the major concerns the State has set in their guidelines. The Committee has until September 1,1 to tormulate any comments it has. Additionally, the Committee must decide if it wants another meeting between now and September l>t to receive public comments Chairperson Johnston said Moira Hahn also provided the Committee with comments she had She said she would like to go through each ofMs Hahn's comments and therefore felt the Committee needed more time Mr Whittenberg said he did not address Moira Hahn's comments as he assumed Ms Hahn would address the audience and fonnally present them for the Record to the Committee Member Willey said she would like to schedule another meeting, stating she would like more time to review the document Member Goldberg said she would like to hear audience comments and felt the Committee would have another meeting prior to September 1'1 MOTION by Goldberg, SECOND Willey to open the Public Hearing at this time to receive comments fi-om the public regarding the Research Design document MOTION CARRlED. 4 - 0 - 1 . AYES' NOES: ABSENT Goldberg, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Johnston None Fitzpatlick 08-06-97 MII1111~~ doc 13 Arclweologlcal AclV/!>OIY Committee Rc'glllar A1eel111g MlllUles AII[!.USl 6, 1997 . Moira Hahn.~ Be.a.ch Ms. Hahn requested KEA respond to her questions in writing She heard that an ethno-historic component will be written by KEA or someone else as a part of the Research Design. She wondered when this would be written and if it will be a part of the Research Design or a separate document? Also, Mr. Cleland made reference to looking at the bigger picture in fonnulating research questions She felt that some of the proposed research questions were good but overall they seemed generic. In her opinion the sites represent Puvunga, the center of the Chinigchinich cult, which was a center religion for quite a few Southwestern and Great Basin tribes is an impOliant question She wouldn't consider the Research Design thorough if there weren't a few questions included regarding that issue Regarding the field program, Ms. Hahn did not understand from reading the Research Design if the purpose for the field testing program is simply to selve as an initial sub-surface investigation or if that serves as the entire investigation. She quickly went through her memo . KEA said it was unclear whether the National Historic Preservation Act applied; it does The Anny Corps of Engineers attorney tor this project told her in April that it applies to the entire project site, which would include all the archaeolo!,l)' The Archaeological and Historical Element of the Seal Beach General Plan is missing from the regulatOlY context and needs to be adhered to. Also missing fi-om the regulatOlY context passage is the Califomia Coastal Act and Senate Bill 297, they're described but not named Keith Dixon's conclusions --- KEA did cite Dixon's aliicle revlvmg Puvunga in the bibliography But Dixon states "We have no idea when Puvunga was first occupied, the extent of the site, or its relation with other remains in the area" So, he didn't limit his interpretation ofPuvunga to Bixby Hill Dr. Dixon wrote a letter to the City in December 1996 in which he stated "The impOliance of the Hellman Ranch sites is emphasized due to their likely association with Puvunga " Also, Mr. Whittenberg said KEA needs to take a carefilllook at the Naval Weapons Station, as it's the other half of the Landing Hill complex Two of the sites there are listed on the National Register. And especially the obsidian pmi --- they have been doing a lot of obsidian dating and sourcmg The issue raised by Mr Whittenberg and KEA of whether LSA actually did all of the field testing that it was supposed to have done is answered in an article in the Seal Beach Journal of August 2, 1990. The fi-ont-page a1iicle's headline says "Mola Stops Digs on Hellman" This article indicates LSA did complete the program --- they did dig the 103 units . Also, KEA states 259 and 265 have been destroyed; did KEA go out there and look? She thinks parts of the sites may still be there Also, regarding site 265, if there is still any of it left, that seems to be where the Hellman's want to put their dIiving range She could not find a reference to this in the DEIR 08-06-97 MUllIlll\ doc 14 Arcl/(/eologlcal AdV/sOIY Conmllttee Regular Meell11g Mlllules AllgIIM 6,1997 . Also, Mr. Whittenberg made a point about site 262, and it's important. The Infonnation Center says that's right across the site fi-om the Naval Weapons Station --- it's definitely on the project site. Also, what statistical method does KEA plan to use for its unit placement? Could KEA consider using more units rather than STPs especially on sites that have yielded burials and artifacts, like 852 and 260; the sites that have yielded the most infonnation and human remains. She didn't think that 8 units on a site that may be 42,000 or more square meters is adequate. LSA never produced a final report or even field notes, but they averaged 20 standard units, 1 square meter units, per site She didn't teel KEA should do this on all of them. She felt KEA was right about some sites, like 851 because there's hardly anything there. They will find out for sure when they get to sub-surfc1ce investigations Mr. Whittenberg indicated the comments will be responded to in wliting as part of the City Council infonnation packet, and also addressed a comment about Ora-265, which is off the site It's not evaluated in the EIR because it's not a pali of the project and therefore is not subject to this review in any manner That site is actually on the Boeing (former Rockwell) property . Eugene Ruyle * AnthrQR.J>loh'Y- DegalimeJlt,J:.aLS...tat.e Lon,!! BeaclJ Mr. Ruyle said he had not had time to read the Research Design carefully nor to prepare a written statement. But, overall it does look like a well-done document He was uneasy about "this" and said we need the whole thing in perspective. What we're talking about is the destruction of a really important pmi of Native American heritage "driven by basically White values". The Research Design seems to provide some kind of justification or methods that White people can feel good about the continued destlUction of Native heritage There's a number of statements here about the research designs and the research problems that current archaeology is concerned with If you were to look back at the history of archaeology and anthropology in this countlY, to the 19111 century, the scientific community at that time firmly believed in the superiority of the White race They dug up thousands ofIndian skulls --- driven by their ideas of what scientifically respectable questions were They wanted to demonstrate the superiority of the White race and the interiority oflndian people. In retrospect we can look back on this and see it was not scientific and we can see all the values that were involved there He wondered what everyone would be thinking about in the 21 ~l centUlY --- as they look back and see what archaeology is doing at the present time --- continuing to destroy Indian heritage. What's behind this is not research design, it's not scientific questions, it's the desire for Hellman's to make money out of the project He didn't know how much money Hellman has already made out of this land "but apparently it's not enough" . A number of research questions are posed and are interesting At the bottom there is the incorporation of Native American values in the evaluation of site significance and this is below the presentation of data in the final repOli After the repOli is all done, we're going to start 08-06-97 M1I1111c~ doc 15 Arclu/('ologl('al AdvIsory Comnllttee Reglllar 11l/('ell11g Ml11utes Auglls16, 1997 . looking at Native American values He didn't know how this would make sense from a scientific standpoint, particularly for anthropology where we are supposed to be concerned about the people we're studying. The ethical code of SOP A says we need to be sensitive to the concerns of the living descendents of the society we're studying. He didn't know, therefore, why those comments were at the bottom; he thought they should be at the top Native concerns should be considered at the very beginning . There is a lot of discussion about site significance and site boundaries but they have not been asking Indians how and what they think about what was involved here Did they think the former Indians lived in a certain place and didn't leave that boundary? He felt the Indians didn't worry about a Seal Beach Boulevard being built there in several hundred or thousand years He didn't know if anyone had asked the Indians what they considered the significance of the sites and what their boundaries are Moira Hahn mentioned the need for an ethno-historical element and he wondered how this could be done in the time frame being discussed "This area is delimited by White people For Native people this is part of a much wider area" The time frame we're talking about is determined by the needs of the developer to develop the site. But if an ethno-historical element/study is wanted it would mean we'd have to talk to Native people about ethno-history. Before Native people will talk to use we need to gain their trust. Quite frankly, archaeologists in Southern Calitornia don't have a lot of trust built up in the past We know what has happened a Puvunga, and on his campus, and at Bolsa Chica and Newport Bay. Now we hear the Catholic Church is planning a cathedral on the remains of a cemetery that was associated with the village ofYonga There were no other persons in the audience wishing to address the Committee Member Willey said she would like to continue this meeting to another date She addressed the Research design document, nothing her pel1lsal was not as thorough as she would have liked it to be at this point She had a question on whether the Research Design is simply an initial phase that will determine what the final mitIgation will be if a site of significance is found or, whether this is the whole package This needs to be clarified In Table 3 she noted that KEA mentions 19 shovel test pits as a supplement and likewise 5 or 6 full-scale test pits. She assumed what KEA is proposing is that if they find something they are simply giving that as a reason to include a celiain financial slot in case they need to excavate those areas. However, KEA doesn't explain it at all --- it's just hanging out there They need to mention that they have included the extra shovel test pits and the supplemental test pits for some specific reason She will have more comments later. Member Goldberg said that when the Committee interviewed with KEA the City did mention the infrared testing It seemed KEA didn't want to do it and she wanted to know why KEA felt strongly about it now . There was a bJief discussion among Committee members on when and at what time t hold another meeting 08-06-97 M1l1111e~ doc 16 Arclweolo[!./cal AdvIsory Comnl111ee Regular Meel111g M11I111es Auglls16, 1997 . MOTION by Willey, SECOND by Goldberg to continue this matter to August 13, 1997 at 5'30 p m to allow additional comments fi-om the Committee or the public MOTION CARRfED: 4-0-1 AYES NOES ABSENT' Goldberg, Willey, Young, and Chairperson Johnston None Fitzpatlick Mr. Cleland thanked everyone for their input He said KEA does not see the Native American program as secondaIY in any sense They were sorry if that CaIne through in the document even though they spent a lot of time on the archaeological questions That has something to do with the process in general. The Native American component is seen as being very impOltant and something that will get a lot of attention during the course of the evaluation prograIn COMMITTEE CONCERNS . Member Goldberg moved that in the Committee's regular meeting in October that Lisa Bosalet, or someone from the Department of the Navy, attend the meeting to discuss what is going on at the station A walkover tour was suggested and she thought it would be very helpful to this Committee She wanted to see it set up. She wanted to look at the photos they have IfKEA has not seen the photos she suggested they might want to attend Mr Whittenberg asked if the Committee wanted staff to work with the Navy to schedule the site visit prior to the October 19111 meeting? Member Goldberg said the walkover would have to be done in the evening or on a weekend but not at the same time as a meeting Mr Whittenberg said he would poll the Committee at the October 19111 meeting and see when they would like to do the walkover STAFF CONCERNS Mr Whittenberg said the only staff concern was what date to adjourn this meeting to This has been taken care of. ADJOURNl\1ENT Hearing no objections, Chairperson Johnston indicated this meeting is continued to Wednesday, August 13, at 530 P.M , and adjourned this meeting at 6 30 P m . 08-06-97 lvhll1l11l~ doc 17 . . . e Whittenberg, Secretary Archaeological Advisory Committee AI clweologlcal AdVIsory Comnllttee Regular Meetlllg Mlllules AllgIIS16, 1997 ~ Archaeological Advisory Committee Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Archaeological Advisory Committee The Archaeological AdvisOlY Committee Minutes of August 6, 1997 were approved on 0L:PTt77JB~ ) 7 ,1997. 08-06-97 MlI11111l~ doc 18