Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAAC Min 1994-12-190 ? CITY OF SEAL BEACH ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY SUB - COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES DECEMBER 19, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER Member Hahn called the Archaeological Advisory Sub - Committee Meeting of December 19, 1994 to order at 2:05 PM, in the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Building 230 Conference Room. H. ROLL CALL Present: Members Aviani, Goldberg, Hahn, and Price. Absent: Member Davies Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Development Services Director Weapons Station Personnel Present: Lisa Barnett and Rodd Kelsey III. DISCUSSION of NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SUBMISSION PACKAGE to SHPO re: "ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION PLAN FOR INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITES 4, 8, 9 and SWMU 56 Lisa Barnett, Naval Weapons Station, indicated that the subject document has been prepared by the Navy to provide a program for the identification, testing and recovery of cultural resources which may be impacted by the activities proposed to be undertaken on the subject sites as part of the Installation Restoration (IR) program. Ms. Barnett provided a brief overview of sites 4, 8, 9, and SWMU 56 for the sub - committee, indicating that a walkover of each site /swmu was accomplished by the archaeologist as part of the preparation of the archaeological resources protection plan (ARPP). Two marine shell deposits were located, one at Site 4 (south perimeter road) and one at Site 9 (Sandblast Grit Disposal). The marine shell deposit will be avoided as part of the additional testing program at Site 4, and the marine shell deposit will not be impacted by the additional testing proposed for the perimeter road area. Site 9 involves an area D:\WP51XARCHCOMM\12-19-94.MIN\LW\12-22-94 Archaeological Advisory Sub - Committee Minutes December 19, 1994 approximately 14' x 14' in area, and additional testing is proposed for this area also, no excavation /removal operations are contemplated at this time. This area is felt to be part of a fill deposited on the salt marsh estuary to make more useable land surface. Ms. Barnett further indicated all subject sites /swmu will be subject to additional testing, which may include soil borings. She further indicated that, relative to Site 4 (south perimeter road), if additional soil testing indicates that the soil adjacent to this site must be removed for remediation, an archaeological test program must be performed to determine whether the shell deposit represents an archaeological site and whether it extends under the road. If the test program indicates an archaeological site, the eligibility of the site and its boundaries must be determined. Site 8 and SWMU 56 did not indicate a presence of archaeological materials, based on the walk -over conducted by the archaeologist. Member Aviani clarified that additional testing will occur at all of the subject sites, no removal actions will begin in the near future. Ms. Barnett indicated that additional testing and analysis will occur. Member Hahn asked why SHPO considered Site 9 as "the most critical "? Ms. Barnett indicated that designation was placed on Site 9 due to the intent of the Navy to initiate a removal action, and that the removal action has been delayed. In response to questions from Member Hahn and Secretary Whittenberg, Ms. Barnett described the additional testing program contemplated, particularly for Site 4 in regards to IR testing and archaeological testing. Ms. Barnett further indicated, pursuant to Section 6.2 of the ARPP, that "All excavation to remove soil for testing, remediation., or disposal will be monitored by an Archaeological Monitor and a Native American Monitor." The ARPP requires the Native American Monitor to be from either the Gabrielino Tongva/Tribal Council or the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians. The Archaeological Monitor will be appointed by the project Archaeologist, and will have received training as an archaeological monitor, but will in all likelihood not be a licensed archaeologist. If a single person can qualify as both the Archaeological and Native American Monitor, there will only be one monitor, if, not, two separate monitors will be at each site during any excavation activity. Member Hahn distributed a memo dated December 16 regarding the subject ARPP and the sub - committee time to review the memo, and the sub - committee then proceeded to discuss each item in order: 1. How can the marine shell deposits be determined to be "fill ". What type of records does the Navy have regarding past landfilling practices. In discussion with Chester King, it was indicated that a laboratory analysis of the shell deposit would indicate whether a deposit was archaeological or fill. Both sites 4 and 9 should be subject to a test phase. D:% WP5I\ARCHCOMW12- 19- 94.MIW\LW112 -22 -94 2 Archaeological Advisory Sub - Committee Minutes December 19, 1994 Ms. Barnett indicated that the archaeologist made its determination based on the uncommon types of shells which make up the shell deposits, and referenced page 14 of the report. Member Aviani asked what degree of certainty is required by an archaeologist. Ms. Barnett indicated that based on the location, and the analysis of the archaeologist, the site appears to be a fill site. Member Aviani indicated that his understanding of Site 9 is that it is an area which has built up by the Navy for roads, railroad tracks, etc., and appears to be an area of fill activity, different from other areas of the Weapons Station. He further indicated that if the site very clearly is a fill site, what is the value of testing on disturbed site, particularly if it cannot be determined where the original source of the fill material was. Members Hahn and Aviani discussed what is the responsibility of determining where the fill material came from, and the responsibility to test disturbed material. Member Aviani asked if it is the position of Member Hahn that all shell deposits must be laboratory tested? Member Hahn indicated that due to the location, she feels testing should be done. In response to questions from Secretary Whittenberg, Ms. Barnett indicated that Site 9 would have been used in the 1960- 1970's, and if so, before requirements for environmental /archaeological reporting was required. Member Hahn indicated she still felt the site should be tested. Secretary Whittenberg indicated that if testing is done, and the site is determined to be archaeological in nature and a fill site, of what significance is the testing if it cannot be determined where the material was originally located. Without knowing the original source, of what significance is the testing? Member Goldberg asked if Member Hahn has a problem with Mason, the archaeologist who prepared the report, in light of the comments of Chester King. Member Hahn, indicated that yes she did, given the UNOCAL reports prepared by his firm. Ms. Barnett, in response to a question from Member Goldberg, indicated that the Navy is complying with the requirements of Section 106. Ms. Barnett and Member Hahn differed as to the conclusion of the archaeologist regarding Site 9. The Committee reviewed the provisions of the "Archaeological Element." regarding test phase analysis and the differences of opinion between the archaeologist who prepared the report and Member Hahn as to the cultural significance of the site. Member Hahn indicated that a "test phase" could be accomplished a relatively little cost, since the site is very small. Ms. Barnett indicated that the costs would be extensive, since the area in question is potentially contaminated, and all soil removal activities would be subject to strict EPA and OSHA requirements due to the potential contamination. Member Aviani again verified that "All excavation to remove soil for testing, remediation, or disposal will be monitored by an Archaeological Monitor and a. D: \WP51\A RCHCOMM \12- 19- 94.MIN \LW \12 -22 -94 3 Archaeological Advisory Sub - Committee Minutes December 19, 1994 Native American Monitor. " The ARPP requires the Native American Monitor to be from either the Gabrielino Tongva/Tribal Council or the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians. The Archaeological Monitor will be appointed by the project Archaeologist, and will have received training as an archaeological monitor, but will in all likelihood not be a licensed archaeologist. If a single person can qualify as both the Archaeological and Native American Monitor, there will only be one monitor, if, not, two separate monitors will be at each site during any excavation activity. Ms. Barnett indicated that the provisions of the Archaeological Element provide differing directions as to the selection of Native American monitors. This issue will be discussed at a later time between Member Hahn and Ms. Barnett. Member Goldberg verified that a Native American will be mandated on site, and that the native american monitor can not be a designated "most likely descendent ". Members Aviani and Hahn requested clarification of this, determining that although there may only one monitor at a site during excavation activities, that monitor will meet both the requirements for an "Archaeological" and a "Native American" monitor. If one person cannot meet both sets of qualifications, two separate individual monitors would be present. Ms. Barnett concurred with this understanding. Member Hahn indicated she was pleased to see that the qualifications for both monitors exceed the requirements established in the "Archaeological and Historical. Element of the Seal Beach. General Plan ". 2. Did Mason read the "Baseline Archaeological Report" of the City? Ms. Barnett indicated that the subject report indicates that the document was reviewed by Mason, and Secretary Whittenberg indicated that Mason works for the Chambers Group, which is a city- selected archaeological firm, and all three of the city - selected archaeological firms were provided with a copy of the "Baseline Archaeological Report" of the City. Mason does not say he read the report, and should so state, if in fact he did. Ms. Barnett indicated her assumption is that Mason would have read a document provided by the City and UCLA. Member Hahn further indicated that Mason indicated he did not read the Cottrell and Cooley report of 1973, and the subject report does not provide any information regarding sites 8 and SWMU 56. Ms. Barnett indicated that those sites did not indicate any cultural resources. The committee requested the report indicate that Site 8 and SWMU 56 be discussed in the field survey results and Ms. Barnett indicated she would request that modification. 3. The depth of remedial soil testing is not mentioned and the area of remediation is not specified. Ms. Barnett indicated that the description of sites is provided in D:\ WP51\ ARCHCOMM \12- 19- 94.MIN \LW\12 -22 -94 4 Archaeological Advisory Sub - Committee Minutes December 19, 1994 Section 2.2, and is based on the walk -over survey conducted by Mason. Member Hahn discussed a detailed map for the IR program, which indicates a much larger area to be considered. Ms. Barnett indicated that the initial IR investigation areas indicated have been reduced in size, based on actual field testing and soil sampling for contamination. The areas investigated by Mason reflect the current extent of potential contamination based on testing and sampling done to this point in time. Member Hahn indicated she understood the difference in areas. Member Hahn indicated the ARPP does not include a brief description of the actual IR remediation activity which is proposed for each site. Can a brief description be provided for each site? Ms. Barnett indicated that originally removal actions were anticipated, but that additional testing will still be undertaken at each site. The results of the additional testing will dictate the appropriate removal action. Ms. Barnett indicated she will request a modification to the report to include a brief description of the additional testing /removal activities, and the scope of that proposed work. 4. Feels report mis- states number of archaeological sites on the Weapons Station. Member Hahn indicated that Site 260 is indicated by Bissell to extend onto the Station and that the "unrecorded" RECON site should be counted. Ms. Barnett clarified that the UCLA "Records Search" information only indicates three sites on the Weapons Station and that the Committee presentation by Ogden on November 9, 1994, also indicated that Site 260 is only recorded as being across the street from the Weapons Station. Member Hahn indicated that has not been proven. Ms. Barnett indicated what proof was needed, and that Ogden indicated the designation of Site 260 onto the Weapons Station was confusing. Ms. Barnett again referenced the discussion by Ogden at the Committee meeting of November 9, 1994 meeting, and the fact that Bissell recorded Site 260 only on the other side of Seal Beach Boulevard. Ms. Barnett indicated that Bissell never did any testing on the Weapons Station in relation to Site 260, and his comments are questionable. The sub - committee then discussed the continuation of Site 260, and the location of Sites 322 and 1118. Ms. Hahn indicated it is inaccurate to not count Site 260 as being on the Weapons Station. Secretary Whittenberg indicated that it was his recollection that Bissell indicated that Site 260 "may" extend onto the Weapons Station, but that the recorded site survey only designates Site 260 as being located across the street from the Weapons Station. He further suggested that the actual terminology used by Bissell in his report be reviewed by the Committee, and if D: \WP51 WRCHCOMM \12- 19- 94.MIN\LW \12 -22 -94 5 Archaeological Advisory Sub- Committee Minutes December 19, 1994 a correction is appropriate based on that review, a comment could be forwarded to the Navy for consideration. Member Hahn indicated that RECON indicates a site exists on the Weapons Station, and asked if the Navy has contacted RECON? Ms. Barnett indicated she has not, since her time has been devoted to responding to the concerns of Member Hahn. She also questioned the appropriateness of RECON providing maps to Member Hahn, as an interested citizen, which the Navy does not have copies of. Ms. Barnett indicated that the Navy has no record of RECON doing any archaeological work at the Station, the only report done by RECON was a "Natural Resources Management Plan ", with no sites indicated. RECON never recorded or reported a site, and RECON should abide by SOPA standards, which they have not done. Member Goldberg indicated that a report should be done by RECON. Ms. Barnett indicated the area in question is not involved in the IR Program, and the Navy will follow this up in the future. RECON was not contracted to provide archaeological documentation. Ms. Barnett questioned the statements made regarding third party information as fact regarding her personal knowledge of the unrecorded RECON site. Member Hahn indicated that the RECON site is impacted by IR Site 1. 5. Mason did not mention the existence of burials across the street from the Weapons Station and should have been mentioned in the subject report. No comments on this item. 6. The statement on page 21 of the subject report regarding the depth of archaeological sites is misleading. No comment on this item. 7. This matter has already been discussed above, in item 2 above. Ms. Barnett clarified that the survey site for the Navy housing project extended to both sides of Bolsa Avenue, but the recorded site is only on the north side of Bolsa Avenue, no shell extends to the south side of Bolsa Avenue. Member Hahn indicated that Site 8 and SWMU are closed to Site 322, and therefor some discussion as to what was observed on the walk -over survey for these sites should be included in the document. Ms. Barnett indicated, as stated earlier, that the document will be revised to include the appropriate discussion. 8. There is no discussion of a Research Design, one should be provided. Ms. Barnett indicated that it is not known if an archaeological site even exists. If a future "test phase" analysis indicates the presence of archaeological resources D: \WP51\ ARCHCOMM \12- 19- 94.MIN \LW \12 -22 -94 6 Archaeological Advisory Sub- Comnuttee Minutes December 19, 1994 which would be impacted by future IR Program remediation activities, a "Research Design" would be prepared. 9. Discusses difficulty in locating appropriate Native American monitor, suggests contacting the pan -tribal coalition of Native Americans that is involved with the Puvunga village site at Cal State Long Beach. Ms. Barnett indicated that she does want the Navy do a selection and have the Committee have a problem with their credentials, considering that the Navy is requiring to meet the same requirements as set forth in previous conditions of approval recommended by the Committee. The sub - committee reviewed the language of the "Archaeological Element" regarding "Native American Representative" and Native American Monitor ", as set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the "Archaeological Element ". The sub - committee indicated the discussion in the "Archaeological Document" was confusing. Secretary Whittenberg indicated his confusion arose out of the committee- approved condition for the UNOCAL project, where the committee specified a Juaneno monitor, after extensive discussion. Member Hahn indicated she did not remember that discussion, while Members Goldberg and Price recalled the discussion and the specification of a Juaneno monitor, as brought up by Member Unatin. Member Goldberg indicated that each project should be individually evaluated to insure appropriate tribal representation during any monitoring activity. Secretary Whittenberg indicated it would be extremely helpful to staff for the Committee to provide additional direction, as staff was basing the recommendation on the Bixby EIR on the determinations of the Committee regarding the UNOCAL project. After discussion, the sub - committee felt that the issue of Native American monitors should be revisited, given the differences among the local tribes as to appropriate tribal boundaries. This would require future public hearings to amend the "Archaeological and Historical. Element of the General Plan ". Ms. Barnett clarified that the concern of the Committee was that the Native American monitor be of a local tribe to the Southern California area, and meet the minimum training requirements of the Archaeological Element. Member Hahn indicated that she was pleased to note that the Navy experience requirements for Native American monitors are much more demanding than the City's, 1 year of experience vs. 20 hours of experience. Member Hahn discussed the requirements for Native American representatives, as being different from that of Native American monitors or most likely descendants. In response to a question from Ms. Barnett as to what role the Native American representative has in the process, Member Hahn indicated the role is to provide comments on documents pertaining to archaeological resources within the community. U: \WP51\ ARCHCOMM \12- 19- 94.MMLW \12 -22 -94 7 Archaeological Advisory Sub - Committee Minutes December 19, 1994 10. The consultant makes two excellent points by indicating it may be necessary to employ both an Archaeological Monitor and a Native American Monitor in order to provide sufficient protection to any cultural resources encountered, and that the Native American monitor have at least one year of previous archaeological experience in excavation or monitoring. Member Hahn indicated that both of these ideas were excellent. This concluded comments regarding the prepared memo by Member Hahn of December 16, 1994. Member Aviani then verified that the Navy is still in the testing phase, and that no removal activities are anticipated in the immediate future. During the continuation of the testing phase for contaminants, archaeological and Native American monitors will be present to observe the continuation of the testing phase for soil contamination. Ms. Barnett clarified that additional IR testing at Site 4 will probably not include archaeological or Native American monitoring, since the potential cultural site will be specifically avoided during any IR testing /removal work. If IR testing /removal activities will impact the potential cultural site, then a "test phase" will occur prior to any removal activity in that area. If the site is not disturbed, it will not be studied. In relation to the HARP plan, specific provisions will appear in the plan relative to impaction guidelines for all identified sites on the Weapons Station, including the potential cultural site related to IR Site 4. Ms. Barnett further indicated that in relation to Site 9, due to the small size of the removal site, an archaeological monitor and Native American monitor will be present to observe all additional testing /removal activities. She will verify this with the appropriate consultants and report back to the full Committee on January 18, 1995, in addition to any other changes which may be recommended based on the discussion this afternoon. Discussion was held among the sub - committee as to the review and concurrence process utilized by SHPO in agreeing with the Navy's finding of no significant impact. Even if SHPO agrees with the request from the Navy, the concerns of the Committee will be dealt with, and a response to those concerns will be prepared prior to initiation of any removal activity. No removal activity will occur prior to the meeting of the full committee on January 18, 1995. Ms. Barnett indicated that hopefully a revised ARPP plan can be presented to the Committee on or before January 18, 1995. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no other matters of discussion by the sub - committee, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m. D: \WP51\A RCHCOMM \12- 19- 94.MIN \LW \12 -22 -94 8 I Archaeological Advisory Sub - Committee Minutes December 19, 1994 ee Whittenberg, Secretary Archaeological Advisory Commi e D:\WP51\ARCHCOMM\12-19-94.MIN\LW\12-22-94