Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Apn F1 - Cultural Resources
APPENDIX F1 Cultural Resources Survey CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AND TEST FOR OTAY RANCH PARCEL B CHULA VISTA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: Otay Land Company, LLC Gallegos & Associates 1903 Wright Place, Suite 220 5671 Palmer Way, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 918-8200 (760) 929-0055 PJ. 6-08 Revised by: Anna C. Noah, Ph.D. Noah Archaeological Consulting 5989 Jackson Drive La Mesa, CA 91942 (619) 733-2070 National Archaeological Data Base Information Type of Study: Survey and Test Area Covered: Approximately 300 acres USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle: Otay Mesa Previously Recorded Sites: CA-SDI-4726, CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-12809, CA-SDI- 14176, CA-SDI-14235, CA-SDI-14236 Previously Recorded Isolates: P-37-014531, P-37-014532, P-37-014533, P-37-015008, P-37-015145 Newly Recorded Isolates: OR-I-3, OR-I-4, OR-I-5, OR-I-6, and OR-I-7 Key Words: Habitation site, Steep-edged unifacial tool (SEUT/adze), Battered implement, Core, Biface, Discoidal, Metate, Mano, Shell Authors Contributors Monica Guerrero, RPA J. Jeffrey Flenniken – Lithic Specialist Project Archaeologist Stephen Van Wormer – Project Historian Karen E. Doose – Lab Director, Report Production Dennis R. Gallegos Nick Doose – GIS Specialist, Graphics Project Manager Brian Spelts – Field Crew, Graphics Lucas Piek – Field Crew Brian Williams – Field Crew Larry Tift – Field Crew Carmen Lucas – Native American Monitor February 2009 (Revised July 2010) PJ. 6-08 February 2009 Revised July 2010 i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Project Description 1-1 1.2 Environmental Setting 1-1 1.3 Background - Precontact 1-5 1.3.1 Early Period/Archaic 1-7 1.3.2 Late Period 1-10 1.4 Historical Background 1-12 1.4.1 Spanish Period (1769-1821) 1-12 1.4.2 Mexican Period (1821-1848) 1-12 1.4.3 American Period (1848 to Present) 1-13 1.4.4 Local History of Otay Ranch 1-13 1.5 Previous Work 1-16 1.5.1 Previously Recorded Sites 1-17 1.5.2 Previously Recorded Isolates 1-21 1.6 Historical Map Review 1-21 1.7 Summary 1-22 2 RESEARCH ORIENTATION AND METHODS 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Research Orientation 2-1 2.2.1 Chronology 2-1 2.2.2 Subsistence and Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction 2-2 2.2.3 Settlement Patterns 2-5 2.2.4 Trade and Travel 2-7 2.2.5 Lithic Technology 2-9 2.2.6 Research Priorities 2-12 2.3 Field Methods 2-12 2.3.1 Survey Methods 2-13 2.3.2 STP Excavation 2-13 2.4 Laboratory Methods 2-13 2.4.1 Lithic Analysis 2-14 2.5 Native American Consultation 2-19 2.5.1 Provisions for Encountering Human Remains 2-19 2.6 Curation 2-20 3 SURVEY RESULTS 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Survey Methods 3-1 3.3 Survey Results 3-1 PJ. 6-08 February 2009 Revised July 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS cont’d. SECTION TITLE PAGE 3.3.1 Previously Recorded Sites 3-2 3.3.2 Previously Recorded Isolates 3-4 3.3.3 Newly Recorded Isolates 3-5 3.4 Summary 3-6 4 TEST RESULTS 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Test Results 4-1 4.2.1 Surface Collection 4-2 4.2.2 Shovel Test Pits (STPs) 4-9 4.3 Summary 4-9 5 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, 5-1 AND CA-SDI-14235 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Lithic Analysis (by J. Jeffrey Flenniken) 5-1 5.2.1 Analyzed Samples 5-2 5.2.2 Technological Artifact Categories (tecats) 5-2 5.2.3 Nodule Core Reduction 5-7 5.2.4 Toolstone Materials 5-8 5.2.5 Analytical Results for CA-SDI-12287 5-9 5.2.6 Analytical Results for CA-SDI-14176 5-9 5.2.7 Analytical Results for CA-SDI-14235 5-9 5.2.8 Technological Summaries 5-10 5.2.9 Functional Summaries 5-11 5.2.10 Lithic Analysis Summary 5-14 5.3 Ground Lithic Artifacts 5-15 5.3.1 Manos 5-15 5.3.3 Ground Stone Fragment 5-15 5.4 Faunal Remains 5-15 5.5 Summary 5-16 6 SITE DISCUSSION 6-1 6.1 Precontact Research Questions 6-1 6.1.1 Chronology 6-1 6.1.2 Subsistence and Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction 6-1 6.1.3 Settlement Pattern 6-2 6.1.4 Trade and Travel 6-2 6.1.5 Lithic Technology (by J. Jeffrey Flenniken) 6-3 6.2 Summary 6-15 PJ. 6-08 February 2009 Revised July 2010 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS cont’d. SECTION TITLE PAGE 7 SIGNIFICANCE DISCUSSION 7-1 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Site Significance and Impact Significance Criteria 7-1 7.3 Site Summaries 7-4 7.4 Research Value 7-5 7.4.1 Site Integrity 7-5 7.4.2 Research Potential 7-6 7.5 Significance and Eligibility Discussion 7-6 7.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 7-7 8 REFERENCES CITED 8-1 LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE 1-1 Terminology for Culture History in the San Diego Area 1-6 4-1 CA-SDI-12287: Cultural Material Recovered 4-2 4-2 CA-SDI-14176: Cultural Material Recovered 4-4 4-3 CA-SDI-14235: Cultural Material Recovered 4-6 5-1 CA-SDI-12287: Flaked Stone Assemblage 5-3 5-2 CA-SDI-14176: Flaked Stone Assemblage 5-4 5-3 CA-SDI-14235: Flaked Stone Assemblage 5-5 6-1 Total Artifacts Recovered 6-5 7-1 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Recommendations 7-8 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE 1-1 Regional Project Location 1-2 1-2 Project Area Shown on USGS Map 1-3 1-3* Cultural Resources within or adjacent to the Otay Ranch 1-18 Project Area 3-1* Survey Results for the Otay Ranch Project 3-3 4-1* CA-SDI-12287 and Surface Collection 4-3 4-2* CA-SDI-14176: Surface Collection and STP Locations 4-7 4-3* CA-SDI-14235: Surface Collection and STP Locations 4-8 5-1 Simplified Example of Nodule Core Reduction Process 5-6 PJ. 6-08 February 2009 Revised July 2010 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS cont’d. FIGURE TITLE PAGE 6-1 SEUT Manufactured from Nodule Core Flake 6-9 6-2 SEUT Manufactured from Bifacial Block Core Flake 6-10 6-3 SEUT Manufactured from Exhausted Nodule Core 6-11 6-4 SEUT Manufactured from Cobble- to Boulder-Sized Nodules 6-13 6-5 SEUT Edge Forms 6-14 7-1* Cultural Resource Sites within or adjacent to the Otay Ranch 7-9 Project Area LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE PAGE A Resumes of Key Personnel A-1 B Record Search Results B-1 C Technological Category Abbreviations C-1 D Catalogs D-1 E* Site Record Forms and Updates E-1 F Native American Correspondence F-1 G Cultural Resource Survey of Offsite Improvements G-1 * Bound separately in Confidential Appendix PJ. 6-08 February 2009 v Revised April 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Cultural Resource Survey and Test for Otay Ranch Village 8 West Chula Vista, San Diego County, California AUTHORS: Monica Guerrero and Dennis R. Gallegos Gallegos & Associates 5671 Palmer Way, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92010 DATE: July 2010 SOURCE OF COPIES: South Coastal Information Center San Diego State University 4283 El Cajon Blvd, Suite 250 San Diego, California 92105 ABSTRACT: This study provides the results of a cultural resource record search, literature review, field survey, and test program for the approximately 300-acre Otay Ranch Village 8 West (Otay Ranch) project and associated offsite improvements (storm drain, sewer line, and associated easement access road, which would accommodate a trail connection to the Otay Valley Regional Park connector trail north of Otay River). This study was conducted in compliance with City of Chula Vista and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The literature review was positive, identifying 4 cultural resource sites (CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, CA-SDI-14235, and CA-SDI-14236) and 5 isolates (P-37-014531, P-37- 014532, P-37-014533, P-37-015008, and P-37-015145) within or adjacent to the Village 8 West parcel. Two sites (CA-SDI-4789 and CA-SDI-12809) are located within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the offsite improvement area. As a result of the field survey, previously recorded sites CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, and CA-SDI-14235 were relocated, and five new isolates (OR-I-3, OR-I-4, OR-I-5, OR- I-6, and OR-I-7) were identified. Sites CA-SDI-4789 and CA-SDI-12809 in the offsite improvement area were also relocated. Site CA-SDI-14236 and isolates P-37-014531, P- 37-014532, P-37-014533, and P-37-015008 could not be relocated. Isolate P-37-015145 was previously collected by ERCE (1991). Ground visibility within the project area was poor along drainage areas, steep slopes, and in most valley areas, and fair on knoll tops, dirt roads, and some valley areas. Testing/evaluation to determine site significance was conducted for previously recorded sites CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235. Testing at these precontact sites consisted of PJ. 6-08 February 2009 vi Revised April 2010 collection of surface artifacts, excavation of shovel test pits, and artifact cataloging and analysis. Site CA-SDI-12287 was previously tested and identified as not significant (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008), and additional surface artifacts were collected as a result of the present study. Disturbance at the sites consisted of agricultural activity, cattle ranching, previous grading, and fill soil dumping. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14176 consists of 3 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 12 debitage, 2 battered implements, 2 battered implement flakes, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14235 consists of 2 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 5 debitage, and 2 battered implements. The lithic samples recovered from sites CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235 produced a specialized lithic assemblage that suggests the inhabitants visited the site locations for two specific reasons: wood working and plant processing. The kinds of tools and debitage recovered primarily represent SEUTs/adzes, which were likely used for wood working activities. In addition, the presence of milling tools, battered implements, and battered implement debitage supports processing of floral and/or faunal material and maintenance of milling implements. The artifact assemblage primarily reflects the use of local lithic materials. Sites CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235 have poor site integrity, and produced no faunal materials and a low amount of artifacts to address the research questions posed. Site CA- SDI-12287 was previously tested by Clowery-Moreno and Smith (2008) and identified as not significant under CEQA criteria. Given the results of the test program, additional work at the sites would not significantly contribute to the understanding of the sites or past use of the site locations or the site occupants. Given the poor site integrity, low subsurface artifact counts, absence of ecofactual materials, and site disturbance, sites CA- SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235 are identified as not significant under City of Chula Vista and CEQA criteria and are recommended ineligible for listing on the CRHR. Site CA- SDI-12287 was previously identified as not significant (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008). Site CA-SDI-14236 was likely destroyed or mapped incorrectly and is also identified as not significant. Schaefer et al. (1994) previously tested site CA-SDI-4789, which is in the offsite improvement area. The researchers concluded that the testing and analysis program had exhausted the research potential of the site. Based on this conclusion, impacts to the site from the proposed project are identified as not significant. The western edge of CA-SDI- 12809 is within the offsite improvement area APE. This major habitation site may be a remnant of the ethnohistoric village of Otay or one of its satellite villages, although archival research did not reveal the location of the village complex (McDonald et al. 1993). An extensive testing program was carried out at this site in 1993 (McDonald et al. 1993) and two major site occupational areas were identified. The closest of these is located 0.2 miles from the APE. Previous testing was negative inside of and within 0.15 miles of the APE. PJ. 6-08 February 2009 vii Revised April 2010 As presently planned, sites CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, CA-SDI-14235, CA-SDI- 14236, CA-SDI-4789, and CA-SDI-12809; and, isolates P-37-014531, P-37-014532, P- 37-014533, P-37-015008, P-37-015145, OR-I-3, OR-I-4, OR-I-5, OR-I-6, and OR-I-7 will be directly impacted by the proposed development. No further cultural resource work is recommended for sites CA-SDI-4789, CA-SDI- 12287, CA-SDI-14176, CA-SDI-14235, CA-SDI-14236, and CA-SDI-12809. Construction monitoring by an archaeologist and a Native American is recommended for all sites located within the Otay Ranch project area to ensure that if buried features (i.e., burials, hearths) are encountered, they will be evaluated in a timely and appropriate manner. As required by the standard mitigation measures from the Otay Ranch General Development Plan Program EIR, monitoring is also recommended during all cutting of previously undisturbed soils. PJ. 6-08 1-1 February 2009 Revised July 2010 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1PROJECT DESCRIPTION This study was prepared by Gallegos & Associates and submitted to the Otay Land Company, LLC for Otay Ranch Village 8 West (Otay Ranch project). The project area consists of an approximately 300-acre parcel that is proposed for commercial and residential development. Within the 300-acre parcel is a City of San Diego water pipeline, which will be relocated elsewhere within the parcel to accommodate the development. The project also includes an offsite improvement area consisting of an approximately 1600-foot alignment for a storm drain, a sewer line, and an associated easement access road, which would accommodate an offsite trail connection to the Otay Valley Regional Park connector trail north of Otay River. The project area is located within Otay Ranch surrounded by undeveloped land, north of Brown Field, west of Lower Otay Reservoir, and southeast of Wolf Canyon. The project area is depicted on the Otay Mesa 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). This study was conducted in compliance with City of Chula Vista and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. Resumes of key personnel are included in Appendix A; Record Search Results are provided in Appendix B; Glossary of Terms and Technological Category Abbreviations is provided in Appendix C; catalogs in Appendix D; site record forms and updates in Appendix E; Native American Correspondence in Appendix F; and a cultural resource survey report for the proposed offsite storm drain and sewer line improvement area, prepared by Anna C. Noah, Ph.D., in Appendix G. 1.2ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Otay Ranch project area comprises a series of rolling ridges cut by seasonal gullies along the north side of the river. The ridge and gully system originate from a larger ¬«54 ¬«52 ¬«125 §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 §¨¦805 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦8 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 ¨©6 ¨©905 ¨©2 ¨©13 ¨©S3 ¨©22¨©2 OP94 OP67 OP79 OP78 OP52 OP76 OP371 OP15 OP209 OP125 OP75 OP56 OP56 OP78 OP125 OP94 OP94 OP76 OP79 OP79 OP79 OP78 OP78 OP78 OP125 0 52.5Miles E Gallegos & Associates Regional Project Location FIGURE 1-1 P a c i f i c O c e a n Camp Pendleton Oceanside Carlsbad Encinitas Solana Beach Del Mar La Jolla San Diego Imperial Beach Chula Vista Mexico El Cajon Santee Poway Vista San Marcos Escondido Ramona Alpine Julian Mexico Nevada Oregon Idaho CC aa lliiff oo rr nniiaa kj San Diego County Valley Center Otay Mesa Legend kj Project Area kj Project Area PJ. 6-08 1-4 February 2009 Revised July 2010 central ridge created by Salt Creek to the east and Poggi Canyon and Wolf Canyon drainages to the northwest. The parcel is located on the east-facing slope of Rock Mountain and north of the Otay River Valley. The major drainages surrounding the project area include Otay River, Jamul Creek, Dulzura Creek, and Proctor Canyon. The geology of the project area consists principally of two geologic formations: the Otay Formation and the Santiago Peak Volcanics. The Otay Formation, which characterizes a portion of the project area, is described by Kennedy and Tan (1977) as: ...composed of light-gray and light-brown, moderately well sorted, poorly indurated, massive sandstone and claystone…The sandstone is locally cemented but generally it is weakly cemented. The claystone is waxy and composed almost exclusively of bentonite…the topographic expression developed on these beds is rolling and subdued. The Otay Formation makes up most of the low rolling hills in the project area, and soils characteristic of this formation are usually clayey and include various types of Diablo clay and Linne clay loam (USDA 1973). Diablo clay, which is the principal soil in the project area, is often very calcareous and may contain a caliche layer. The Otay Formation is a member of the Rosarito Beach Formation and contains numerous cobble clasts, a high percentage of which are derived from local Santiago Peak Volcanics (Kennedy and Tan 1977). These clasts are predominately dacites and andesites that are embedded within poorly indurated sandstones and siltstones. Because these clasts are derived from the nearby basement strata, they contain a relatively high percentage of fine-grained metavolcanics that were favored by Native Americans as the raw materials for lithic tool manufacture. Adjacent to and east of the Otay Formation are the Santiago Peak Volcanics (San Ysidro Mountains), described as cropping… ...out along the eastern margin of the area and in the central part of the Otay Valley. These rocks are mostly volcanic and range in composition from basalt to rhyolite but are predominantly dacite and andesite. The succession also includes a wide variety of breccia, agglomerate, volcanic conglomerate, fine-grained tuff and tuff breccia. Highly silicified rock, probably tuff, and a variety of dark, dense, fine-grained hornfels occur locally (Kennedy and Tan 1977). PJ. 6-08 1-5 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Soils associated with the Santiago Peak Volcanics are characteristically red in color because of the high iron content in this formation. Within the region these soils include the San Miguel-Exchequer rocky silt loam, Olivenhain cobbly loam, and Friant fine sandy loam (USDA 1973). The project area has been disturbed by agricultural activities over the past 100 years. Vegetation consists primarily of agricultural land with some remnant coastal sage scrub. Riparian vegetation including sycamores, willows, rushes, mule fat, and cattails are present along the Otay River. 1.3 BACKGROUND - PRECONTACT The body of current research of Native American (Precontact) occupation in San Diego County recognizes the existence of at least two major cultural traditions, discussed here as Early Period/Archaic and Late Period, based upon general economic trends and material culture (Table 1-1). Within San Diego County, the Early Period/Archaic includes the period from 10,000 to 1,300 years ago, while the Late Period is from 1,300 years ago to historic contact. The Post-Contact/Historic Period covers the time from Spanish contact to present. Terminology used for the past 10,000-year history of San Diego County includes a mixture of ideas of ordering cultural resource sites using terms for peoples, collections of artifacts, and temporal time frames. The first ordering was by Malcolm Rogers who used the terms: Shell-Midden people, Scraper-Maker culture (scraper-makers), and Yuman (Rogers 1929). Rogers later revised his chronology to use the terms San Dieguito (Scraper-Maker), La Jolla culture (Shell-Midden people) and Yuman (Rogers 1945). Claude Warren (1968) characterized the San Dieguito Tradition as: …a wide range of scraper types made on side-struck flakes and finished by well-controlled percussion flaking, leaf-shaped knives or large points of several varieties, leaf-shaped, lanceolate and slightly shouldered points in small number. Chipped stone crescents, often eccentric in form, hammerstones and crudely flaked tools are few in number. Milling stones and manos are noticeable absent. Terminology for Culture History in the San Diego AreaTable 1-1 (Adapted from Gallegos 2002) Ge o l o g i c Ti m e Pe r i o d Years Before Present Other Names Diagnostic Cultural Materials La t e Ho l o c e n e Mi d d l e Ho l o c e n e Ea r l y Ho l o c e n e Ea r l y P e r i o d ( A r c h a i c ) La t e P e r i o d Present 1,300 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Historic/Contact Precontact/Yuman Kumeyaay/Luiseno Cuyamaca Complex San Luis Rey I, II Pauma Complex Encinitas Tradition La Jolla Complex San Dieguito Tradition/Complex Bow and arrow, small triangular and side-notched points, fish hooks, ceramics, cremations Obsidian Butte obsidian Stone bowls, triangular points, fishing gorges, burials Atlatl (dart) points, cogged stones, plummet stones, leaf-shaped points/knives, corner-notched and stemmed points, Coso Obsidian, gorges, burials Spear, crescentic, lanceolate and leaf-shaped points, leaf-shaped knives, adze/SEUTs, Casa Diablo and Coso obsidian, burials ~ PJ. 6-08 1-7 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Warren’s revision to Rogers’ La Jolla culture was called Encinitas Tradition, “a simple gathering people” wherein he identifies: …flaked stone tools are characteristically crude, the great majority being percussion flaked and made from local macrocrystalline rock. A large percentage of the tool assemblage is composed of crude chopping, scraping and cutting tools and hammerstones. Projectile points are rare, crudely made and rather large, suggesting the use of darts, rather than bow and arrow. Ground stone items include large numbers of manos and milling stones usually shaped through use, and occasional items such as doughnut stones, discs and cogstones…Bone tools are rare but include awls, antler flakers, beads…Shell items are also limited, but include beads, pendants…Basketry is represented…Loosely flexed burials are found throughout the area…(Warren et al. 1998). Warren has more recently updated his chronology and for the San Dieguito Tradition (Initial Occupation) has since included milling tools and a wider range of tools and food sources. In addition, Warren now discusses the potential of Transitional and Intermediate stages of occupation to cover the past 10,000 years of Native American occupation in San Diego County (Warren et al. 1998). Early Man in San Diego County was discussed by George Carter in the 1950s; however, little to no evidence of Pleistocene human occupation supports this hypothesis (Carter 1957). 1.3.1Early Period/Archaic The Early Period/Archaic includes the San Dieguito, La Jolla and Pauma complexes, which are poorly defined, as are the interrelationships between contemporaneous inland, desert, and coastal assemblages (Gallegos 1987). Initially believed to represent big game hunters, the San Dieguito people are better typified as a hunting and gathering society. These people had a relatively diverse and non-specialized economy wherein relatively mobile bands accessed and used a wide range of plant, animal, and lithic resources. Movement of early groups from the California desert may have been spurred by the gradual desiccation of the vast pluvial lake system that dominated inland basins and valleys during the early to middle Holocene. This hypothesis is supported by the similarity between Great Basin assemblages and those of early Holocene Archaic sites in PJ. 6-08 1-8 February 2009 Revised July 2010 San Diego County. Several researchers recognized the regional similarity of artifacts and grouped these contemporaneous complexes under the nomenclature of either the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition or the Western Lithic Co-tradition (Bedwell 1970; Davis et al. 1969; Moratto 1984; Rogers 1939; Warren 1967). Early migrations into San Diego County may have come from the north. Recent work on the northern Channel Islands near Santa Barbara demonstrates island occupation dating back to the terminal Pleistocene, roughly 11,600 years ago (Erlandson et al. 1996; Johnson et al. 2000). At this early date, a fully maritime-adapted population exploited shellfish and used seaworthy boats to ply channel waters. Fish were captured using bone gorges by 10,000 years ago (Rick et al. 2001). Such early dates are lacking for the adjacent Santa Barbara mainland; presumably because the rise in sea level brought about by post-Pleistocene deglaciation would have inundated sites along the late Pleistocene/early Holocene coastlines. At this time in San Diego County, the shoreline was situated two to six km farther seaward than today’s coast (Masters and Gallegos 1997). Therefore, any evidence for early coastal adaptation coeval with that of the northern Channel Islands may have been destroyed within this two to six km paleo- shoreline area by sea encroachment thousands of years ago. The origin of coastal populations in San Diego County and subsequent interaction between these populations and Great Basin/desert groups is a subject of some debate (Gallegos 1987). Whether coastal or inland migration into San Diego County, the first occupants immediately exploited coastal and inland resources of plants, animals, shellfish, and fish (Gallegos 1991; Kaldenberg 1982; Kyle et al. 1998; Moriarty 1967). The development of a generalized economic system indicates that the initial occupation, referred to here as San Dieguito, can be placed within the general Archaic pattern. Archaic cultures occur within North America at slightly different times in different areas, but are generally correlated with local economic specialization growing out of the earlier Paleo-Indian Tradition (Willig et al. 1988). Archaic cultures are often represented by more diverse artifact assemblages and more complex regional variation than Paleo-Indian PJ. 6-08 1-9 February 2009 Revised July 2010 traditions. This cultural pattern is generally thought to have resulted from the gradual shift away from a herd-based hunting focus to a more diverse and area specific economy. The earliest sites are found near coastal lagoons and river valleys of San Diego County. These sites are the Harris site (CA-SDI-149), Agua Hedionda Lagoon sites (CA-SDI- 210/UCLJ-M-15 and CA-SDI-10695), Rancho Park North (CA-SDI-4392/SDM-W-49), and Remington Hills (CA-SDI-11069), dating from 9,500 to 8,000years ago. The north San Diego County coastal lagoons supported large populations, circa 6,000 years ago, as shown by the numerous radiocarbon-dated sites adjacent to these lagoons. After 3,000to roughly 1,500 years ago, there are fewer cultural resource sites in north San Diego County. This reduction in number of cultural resource sites can be attributed to the slowing of the rise in sea level and concomitant siltation of coastal lagoons causing the depletion of shellfish and other lagoon resources (Gallegos 1985; Miller 1966; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Cultural resource sites dated to circa 2,000 years ago are found in the Camp Pendleton area (Byrd and Reddy 2002), wherein shellfish (Donax gouldii) were collected from open-shore sandy beach habitat; and, bay species were still abundant in San Diego Bay, and present but not as dominant in other lagoons. Batiquitos Lagoon, and perhaps other lagoons, reopened circa 1,500 years ago and began producing shellfish again, but not at the quantity, size or variety of shellfish documented for the early to middle Holocene (Gallegos 1985; Miller 1966). The La Jolla and Pauma complexes, which are referred to as following the San Dieguito Complex, may simply represent seasonal or geographic variations of the somewhat older and more general San Dieguito Complex. Inland Early Period /Archaic occupation sites have been reported in coastal settings, transverse valleys, sheltered canyons, benches and knolls (True 1958; Warren et al. 1961). In north San Diego County, non-coastal sites were termed “Pauma Complex” by True (1958, 1980), and were defined as containing a predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates), a general lack of shellfish remains, a greater tool variety, and expressing an emphasis on both gathering and hunting (True 1958, 1980; Warren et al. 1961; Waugh 1986). Early Period/Archaic sites from 10,000 to 1,300 years ago within San Diego County PJ. 6-08 1-10 February 2009 Revised July 2010 include a range of sites to include coastal and inland valley habitation sites, inland hunting and milling camps, and quarry sites usually in association with fine-grained metavolcanic material. Material culture assemblages during this long period are remarkably similar in many respects. These deposits may well represent a process of relative terrestrial economic stability and presumably slow cultural change. Although various cultural traits developed or disappeared during the long span of 10,000 to 1,300 years ago, there is a clear pattern of cultural continuity during this period. 1.3.2Late Period During the Late Period (circa 1,300 to historic contact), a material culture pattern similar to that of Historic Period Native Americans becomes apparent in the archaeological record. The economic pattern during this period appears to be one of more intensive and efficient exploitation of local resources. The prosperity of these highly refined economic patterns is well evidenced by the numerous Kumeyaay/Diegueño and Luiseño habitation sites scattered throughout San Diego County. This increase in Late Period site density probably reflects both better preservation of the more recent archaeological record and a gradual population increase within the region. Artifacts and cultural attributes reflecting this Late Period pattern include small projectile points, pottery, the establishment of permanent or semi-permanent seasonal habitation sites, a proliferation of bedrock milling for acorn and grass seed processing in the uplands, the presence of obsidian from the Imperial Valley source Obsidian Butte, and interment by cremation. Luiseño occupation in north San Diego County during the late Holocene has been viewed as an occupation that resulted from the migration of a population from the desert to the coast (Rogers 1966), a resettlement called “the Shoshonean Wedge” (Kroeber 1925). Late Period cultural patterns were shared with groups along the northern and eastern periphery of San Diego County, incorporating many elements of their neighbors’ cultures into their own cultures. This transference and melding of cultural traits between neighboring groups makes positive association of archaeological deposits with particular ethnographically known cultures difficult. This is particularly true of the groups within PJ. 6-08 1-11 February 2009 Revised July 2010 San Diego County. Although significant differences exist between Luiseño and Kumeyaay/Diegueño cultures (including linguistic stock), the long interaction of these groups during the Late Period resulted in the exchange of many social patterns. Archaeologists must rely heavily on ethnographic accounts of group boundaries as recorded during the Historic Period, although it is not known how long these boundaries had been in place or the validity of these boundaries as presently reported. Kroeber (1925) placed the Kumeyaay and Luiseño boundary between Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos lagoons. According to Luomala (1978) the territory of the Ipai (northern Kumeyaay) extended along the coast from the San Luis Rey River in the north to San Diego Bay in the south with San Felipe Creek marking the east boundary. The territory of the Tipai (southern Kumeyaay) extended south from San Diego Bay to include parts of Mexico and the southern mountains. Florence Shipek (1993) identified the northern and southern Kumeyaay/Diegueño tribal boundary as: In 1769, Kumeyaay national territory starting at the coast about 100 miles south of the Mexican border (below Santo Tomas), thence north to the coast at the drainage divide south of the San Luis Rey River including its tributaries. Using the U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, the boundary with the Luiseño then follows that divide inland. The boundary continues on the divide separating Valley Center from Escondido and then up along Bear Ridge to the 2240 contour line and then north across the divide between Valley Center and Woods Valley up to the 1880-foot peak, then curving around east along the divide above Woods Valley… Further readings pertinent to the Luiseño and Kumeyaay (Diegueño) Native Americans include: Almstedt (1974); Barrows (1900); Bean (1972); Bean and Saubel (1972); Bean and Shipek (1978); Burrus (1967); Cuero (1968); Drucker (1939); Dubois (1908); Gifford (1918); Harrington (1978); Hedges and Beresford (1986); Heizer and Almquist (1971); Heizer and Whipple (1957); Hooper (1920); Keneally (1965); Kroeber (1925); Langdon (1970); Merrill (1973); Pourade (1960); Priestley (1937); Rudkin (1956); Shipek (1977, 1978, 1980, 1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 1991, 1993); Sparkman (1908); Spicer (1962); Spier (1923); Strong (1929); Tibesar (1955); Underhill (1941); White (1963); Wolcott (1929); and Woodward (1934). PJ. 6-08 1-12 February 2009 Revised July 2010 1.4HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The history of San Diego County is commonly presented in terms of Spanish, Mexican, and American political domination. A discussion of historic land use and occupation under periods of political rule by people of European and Mexican origin is justified on the basis of characteristics associated with each period, with the prevailing laws and customs influenced economic, political, and social activities. Certain themes are common to all periods, such as the development of transportation, settlement, and agriculture. Robinson (1969) provides a comprehensive account of public and privately owned land in California, with a discussion of laws, activities, and events related to the development of the state. 1.4.1Spanish Period (1769-1821) The Spanish Period represents exploration, the establishment of the San Diego Presidio and missions at San Diego (1769) and San Luis Rey (1798), and asistencias (chapels) to the San Diego Mission at Santa Ysabel (1818) and to the San Luis Rey Mission at Pala (1816). Horses, cattle, agricultural foods and weed seeds, and a new architectural style and method of building construction were also introduced. Spanish influence continued after 1821 when California became a part of Mexico. For a period of time under Mexican rule, the missions continued to operate as in the past, and laws governing the distribution of land were also retained. 1.4.2Mexican Period (1821-1848) The Mexican Period includes the initial retention of Spanish laws and practices until shortly before secularization of the missions in 1834, a decade after the end of Spanish rule. Although several grants of land were made prior to 1834, vast tracts of land were dispersed through land grants offered after secularization. Cattle ranching prevailed over agricultural activities, and the development of the hide and tallow trade increased during the early part of this period. The Pueblo of San Diego (present-day Old Town) was PJ. 6-08 1-13 February 2009 Revised July 2010 established and transportation routes were expanded. The Mexican Period ended in 1848 as a result of the Mexican-American War. 1.4.3American Period (1848 to Present) The American Period began when Mexico ceded California to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Terms of the treaty brought about the creation of the Lands Commission, in response to the Homestead Act of 1851 that was adopted as a means of validating and settling land ownership claims throughout the state. Few Mexican ranchos remained intact because of legal costs and the difficulty of producing sufficient evidence to prove title claims. Much of the land that once constituted rancho holdings became available for settlement by immigrants to California. The influx of people to California and the San Diego region resulted from several factors including the discovery of gold in the state, the conclusion of the Civil War, the availability of free land through passage of the Homestead Act, and later, the importance of San Diego County as an agricultural area supported by roads, irrigation systems, and connecting railways. The growth and decline of towns occurred in response to population fluxes and economic boom and bust cycles. 1.4.4Local History of Otay Ranch Rancho Otay (Otay Ranch) was originally a Mexican period land grant located in the southwest portion of San Diego County. Otai (Otay is the European spelling) is a Kumeyaay Native American word that has been variously translated as meaning “a wide level knoll,” “big hill,” “a solitary hill in a flat valley,” “a brushy place,” and “a place filled with rushes and reeds” (SDHS n.d.; Rush 1965). The century-long occupied Native American village of Otai was located in this region. The Native Americans of the Otay ranchería were reported by Lt. José Francisco Ortega as being part of the group that attacked and destroyed Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1775 (Brackett 1951). Doña Magdalena Estudillo, daughter of Captain José María Estudillo, received a land grant from Governor José María Echendia in 1829, which encompassed the village of PJ. 6-08 1-14 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Otai. The property was rectangular in shape and contained an area of one league or 6,647 acres. At the same time, Doña Magdalena’s brother, José Antonio Estudillo, received the smaller (4,436 acres) grant of Rancho Janal, which adjoined Rancho Otay (Ritz et al. 1989). Governor Pío Pico reaffirmed these grants on May 4, 1846. The Land Act of 1851 required all holders of property in California to prove their rights of ownership to the lands they claimed. The Estudillo’s petitions for the Otay and Janal properties lasted 10 years, followed by lengthy court hearings (Pourade 1963, 1969). The United States Land Commission finally confirmed Doña Magdalena’s claim on January 21, 1872, and José G. Estudillo (son of José Antonio) received the final patent for Rancho Janal from the United States Land Commission at the same time (SDHS n.d.; Rush 1965). Both properties were known as Rancho Otay at this time with the Janal Rancho designated as Otay Dominguez and the original Rancho Otay called Otay Estudillo (Ritz et al. 1989). Although both ranchos were administrated together, they each had their own cattle brand (Pourade 1969). During the 10-year delay for confirmation, Otay Ranch changed ownership several times. Doña Magdalena deeded the rancho to Don Santiago and Guadalupe Arguello in August 1854. They in turn deeded the property to José Ruiz Escajadillo, who sold an undivided two-thirds of Rancho Otay to Antonio F. Somellera for $6,288.31 in 1869 (San Diego Evening Tribune 1/19/1938; SDHS n.d.). The first American owner of the property was Solon S. Sanborn, who purchased it on July 1, 1872. Captain Mathew Sherman bought a half interest in the property in the same year. Sherman was mayor of San Diego in 1891, owner of Sherman’s Addition,and a Civil War veteran (San Diego Evening Tribune 1/19/1938). By 1879, the ranch belonged to Antonio Somellera (SDHS n.d.). In 1883, the San Diego Land and Town Company, a subsidiary of the Santa Fe Railroad, owned Otay Ranch. The San Diego Land and Town PJ. 6-08 1-15 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Company filed a subdivision map on part of the property in 1900 (San Diego Evening Tribune 1/19/1938). John D. Spreckles bought Otay Ranch around 1900 (Rush 1965). Mr. Spreckles sold both Otay and Janal to his friend and business associate Elisha Spurr Babcock. An avid sportsman, Babcock hunted ducks, quail, rabbits, and other game in Otay. During these outings, he and his guests resided in a hunting lodge built by him and Spreckles in Upper Otay (Janal) (Ritz et al. 1989). Babcock died suddenly in 1922. In 1923, Otay Ranch was purchased by real estate dealer Rube Harrison. In 1936, Harrison sold the property to Stephen Birch (San Diego Evening Tribune 12/21/1988). Birch was a wealthy man who had made a fortune as a mining engineer in Alaska (SDHS n.d.). He was chairman of the board of Kennecott Copper Corporation, and the president of the Alaska Steamship Company. Some of his associates in the Alaskan enterprises included J. P. Morgan and Simon Guggenheim (Los Angeles Times 5/10/1984). Birch had come to California on vacation in the 1920s. He liked San Diego so much that he purchased several large tracts of land, including Otay Ranch. By combining the properties, the original area of Rancho Otay, which was nearly 6,658 acres, grew to about 29,000 acres. The Birch family resided in houses on the Janal portion of the property originally built as hunting lodges by Babcock and Spreckles. Birch hired Thomas Newberry as superintendent of the large ranch, which operated under the name Otay Agricultural Corporation and later United Enterprises, Inc. Stephen Birch Jr. was president, daughter Mary R. Birch Patrick was vice president, and Robert Newell was secretary and treasurer (Rush 1965). In 1957, operation of the ranch was turned over to Edward Loula, who was in charge of accounting and other office work; James E. Schutte, who supervised farming and cropping; and Robert W. Steele, who supervised livestock operations (Rush 1965; San Diego Union 7/28/1968; SDHS n.d.). The land was intensively farmed, producing principally lima beans, hay, and grain. In 1939, 6,000 acres were planted in lima beans, and the remaining ranch land was used to PJ. 6-08 1-16 February 2009 Revised July 2010 graze about 1,000 head of livestock. Fifty carloads of lima beans, which was about one third of the lima bean crop of San Diego County, were produced at Otay Ranch. Foreman D. E. Scarbery developed machinery to harvest the bean crop (Southern California Rancher April 1944). Scarbery also hybridized a new red and white variety of lima bean (Scarbery 1991). Much of this experimental plant breading was done with various departments of agriculture including the Biological Survey Bureau of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Fish and Game (Southern California Rancher May 1944). Lima beans were abandoned as a major crop when bindweed morning glory infested the fields so badly that the bean plants could not grow properly. The last year of lima bean production was 1949 (Cagel 1991). Later crops included barley, wheat, and oat hay (SDHS n.d.). Cattle ranching at Otay Ranch specialized in raising Polled Herefords, Black Angus, and Santa Gertrudis. The brand used to identify them was the same one that had been used by Doña Magdalena Estudillo in the 1800s (Pourade 1969). Stephen Birch Sr. died in 1940 (Rush 1965). His daughter Mary inherited the ranch, and family farming business. In 1955, she married a retired commander of the Royal Air Force, Patrick R. Patrick. They moved to Otay Ranch and lived there for the rest of their lives (Los Angeles Times 5/10/1984; National City Star News 4/1/1984). Mr. Patrick died in 1971. Mary Birch Patrick died in 1983, leaving a hotly contested will, which was still in litigation five years later (San Diego Evening Tribune 12/21/1988:A-14). The ranch was ultimately sold to the Baldwin Company of Irvine in 1988 for $180,000,000 (San Diego Evening Tribune 12/21/1988). 1.5PREVIOUS WORK The record search and literature review were completed at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), San Diego State University (SDSU), San Diego, California, and at the research library at Gallegos & Associates. Record search results are provided in Appendix B. Sixty-seven studies (Baksh 1991; Banks 1980; Berryman and Berryman PJ. 6-08 1-17 February 2009 Revised July 2010 1987; Buysse and Smith 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001; Caltrans 1995, 1998; Carrico et al. 1993; City of San Diego 1981; Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008; Cook and Wright 2005; Cooley et al. 1996; Corum 1989; CRMC 1985; CSRI 1983; Department of Parks and Recreation and Abeyta 1998; Eighmey 1997; ERCE 1991; Fink 1975; Gallegos and Flenniken 2000; Gallegos and Kyle 1992, 1997a, 1997b; Gallegos and Pigniolo 1988; Gallegos et al. 2003; Gross et al. 1996; Hargrove 1985; Hector 1986; Hector and Andrews 2004; McCorkle-Apple and Shaver 2006; McDonald and Case 1994; McDonald and Eighmey 1997; McDonald et al. 1993; McGowan 1997; Mooney 1992; Ogden 1992; Ogden and Gallegos & Associates 1993; Pallette and Serr 1994; Pierson 2003; Pierson and Henry 2007; Ritz et al. 1989; Rosen 1990, 2006; Schaefer et al. 1994a, 1994b; Smith 1989a, 1989b, 1995, 1996, 2003; Smith and Clowery-Moreno 2006; Smith and Moriarty 1984; Smith and Pierson 1999; Smith and Rosenberg 2007; Thesken and Carrico 1982; Tierra Environmental Services and Underwood 2002; Tuma 2002, 2003; Underwood 2000; USDI n.d.; WESTEC 1979, 1982, 1987, 1988; WESTEC and EDAW, Inc. 1986) have been conducted, and 173 cultural resource sites and 49 isolates are recorded within a one-mile radius of the project area. Twelve studies (Berryman and Berryman 1987; Caltrans 1990, Carrico et al. 1993; Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008; Cook and Wright 2005; Hector and Andrews 2004; McDonald et al. 1993; McGowan 1997; Ogden 1992; Rosen 1990; Schaefer et al. 1994a, 1994b; Smith 1996) have been conducted, and 4 cultural resource sites (CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, CA-SDI-14235, and CA-SDI-14236) and 5 isolates (P-37-014531, P-37- 014532, P-37-014533, P-37-015008, and P-37-015145) are recorded within or adjacent to the Village 8 West parcel. An additional 2 sites, CA-SDI-4789 and CA-SDI-12809 are located within the offsite improvement area (Figure 1-3). 1.5.1Previously Recorded Sites ●CA-SDI-4789 Site CA-SDI-4789 is within the offsite improvement area and is discussed in the “Cultural Resource Survey of Offsite Improvements for Otay Ranch Village 8 West, PJ. 6-08 1-18 February 2009 Revised July 2010 FIGURE 1-3 CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST PROJECT AREA (See Confidential Appendix) PJ. 6-08 1-19 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Chula Vista, San Diego County, California” found in Appendix G. This site has been previously tested to determine site significance. The researchers concluded that the site was essentially a surface scatter and that the testing and analysis program had exhausted the site’s research potential (Schaefer et al. 1994a). ●CA-SDI-12287 Site CA-SDI-12287 straddles the Village 8 West project boundary, a portion of the site being within the parcel and a portion adjacent outside the project area. Rader and James (1991a) originally recorded the site as an artifact scatter consisting of one metate fragment, one scraper, and one flake. In 2007, the site was tested using surface collection of artifacts and excavation of 9 shovel test pits (STPs) to determine site significance (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008). As a result of the test program, a total of 5 debitage and 85.1 g of shell (including Chione sp., Ostrea sp., and Tagelus sp.) fragments were recovered. The site was identified as not significant and monitoring during construction was recommended (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008). ●CA-SDI-12809 (SDM-W-2391) CA-SDI-12809 is in and adjacent to the offsite improvement area, which is discussed in Appendix G. This site was originally recorded by McGowan in 1971. Between 1977 and 1983, the Southwestern College Field School recorded and excavated the site, which was identified as Cal. F:5:1 at that time. However, after the death of the property owner, the excavation contract was not renewed (McGowan 1997). Extensive pot-hunting was noted at the site after the field school was closed. The site was re-recorded and updated by Rosen (1989) and was assigned the trinomial CA-SDI-12809, which subsumed trinomials CA-SDI-11369 and CA-SDI-11376. The site was described as “an extensive village area, which, according to Charlotte McGowan, contains San Dieguito, La Jollan, Late Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric components.” Lithics, ground stone, ceramics, shell beads, an abalone pendant, a shell fish hook, glass trade beads, bone tools, hearth features, shell and bone faunal remains, fire-affected rock, and charcoal were recorded at the site (Rosen 1989). In 1993, site CA-SDI-12809 was tested by McDonald et al. as part of the State Route 125-South project. The test program included additional survey and subsurface excavation using STPs and 1x1-m units. As a result of the test, the site was recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP and the CRHR (McDonald et al. 1993 PJ. 6-08 1-20 February 2009 Revised July 2010 and Caltrans 1994). On May 25, 1995, the Office of Historic Preservation concurred with this recommendation (Office of Historic Preservation 1995). Because the site has had a formal determination of eligibility to the NRHP, it is automatically included in the California Register of Historic Resources, meaning it is presumed to be a significant cultural resource for CEQA purposes. In 1996, Smith re-surveyed site CA-SDI-12809 for the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch project (Smith 1996). In 2004, monitoring of CA-SDI-12809 was conducted for the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer project (Hunt 2004). As a result of monitoring, five artifact deposits associated with CA-SDI-12809 were identified. The collected artifacts include lithic tools, debitage, ground stone, pottery, and shell. Hunt (2004) noted that the south side of site CA-SDI-12809 had the potential to produce cultural materials. ●CA-SDI-14176 Site CA-SDI-14176 straddles the parcel boundary, with a portion located within the parcel. The site was recorded by BFSA (1996a) for the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch project (Smith 1996). The site was described as a temporary camp that consists of flakes, one metate, one chopper, three scrapers, one Tizon Brown Ware pottery sherd, and marine shell. This site has not been tested to determine site significance. ●CA-SDI-14235 Site CA-SDI-14235 is located within the Village 8 West parcel. The site was recorded by BFSA (1996e) for the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch project (Smith 1996). The site was described as a lithic scatter that consists of 5+ scrapers, 12+ flakes, and 1 hammerstone. This site has not had a previous determination of significance. ●CA-SDI-14236 Site CA-SDI-14236 was recorded by BFSA (1996f) for the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch project (Smith 1996). The site is located within the Village 8 West parcel and was previously described as a lithic scatter that consists of 7+ flakes, 2 retouched flakes, and 1 scraper. Disturbance at the site consists of an adjacent fence and cattle pasture. This site has not had a previous determination of significance. PJ. 6-08 1-21 February 2009 Revised July 2010 1.5.2Previously Recorded Isolates ●P-37-014531 Isolate P-37-014531 was recorded by BFSA (1996g) for the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch project (Smith 1996). The isolate consists of one flake. ●P-37-014532 Isolate P-37-014532 was recorded by BFSA (1996h) for the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch project (Smith 1996). The isolate consists of one scraper. ●P-37-014533 Isolate P-37-014533 was recorded by BFSA (1996i) for the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch project (Smith 1996). The isolate consists of one flake. ●P-37-015008 Isolate P-37-015008 was recorded by Carol Serr (1990) for the Proposed Otay-2 Pipeline project. The isolate consists of one metavolcanic flake. ●P-37-015145 Isolate P-37-015145 was recorded by Rader and Mitchell (1991b) for the 22,873-Acre Otay Ranch project (ERCE 1991). The isolate consists of one metavolcanic core, which was collected by ERCE. 1.6HISTORICAL MAP REVIEW Early maps (1769-1885 Historic Roads and Trails; 1872 Official Map of the Western Portion of San Diego County, California; 1903 Cuyamaca 30’ USGS topographic quadrangle; 1943 and 1955 Jamul 15’ topographic quadrangle; and, 1955 Otay Mesa 7.5’ topographic quadrangle) were reviewed for historical structures, features, and roads; however, no items of historical significance were identified within the Otay Ranch project area on the early maps. PJ. 6-08 1-22 February 2009 Revised July 2010 1.7SUMMARY The record search and literature review identified 12 studies (Berryman and Berryman 1987; Caltrans 1990; Carrico et al. 1993; Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008; Cook and Wright 2005; Hector and Andrews 2004; McDonald et al. 1993; McGowan 1997; Ogden 1992; Rosen 1990; Schaefer et al. 1994a, 1994b; Smith 1996), 4 cultural resource sites (CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, CA-SDI-14235, and CA-SDI-14236) and 5 isolates (P- 37-014531, P-37-014532, P-37-014533, P-37-015008, and P-37-015145) that are within or adjacent to the project area. An additional 2 sites, CA-SDI-4789 and CA-SDI-12809 are located within the offsite improvement area. Sites CA-SDI-14176, CA-SDI-14235, and CA-SDI-14236 have not been previously tested and site status is unknown. Site CA-SDI-12287 was tested and identified as not significant (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008). In the offsite improvement area (Appendix G), site CA-SDI-4789 was previously tested and identified as not significant (Schaefer et al. 1994), and site CA-SDI-12809 was previously tested and identified as significant and eligible for listing on the NRHP. The Office of Historic Preservation concurred with this recommendation of eligibility in 1995, resulting in an automatic listing of the site on the CRHR (Caltrans 1994; McDonald et al. 1993; McGowan 1997; Office of Historic Preservation 1995). Research Orientation and Methods are provided in Section 2, Survey Results in Section 3, Test Results in Section 4, Analytical Results in Section 5, Site Discussions in Section 6, and Significance Discussion in Section 7. References Cited are found in Section 8. PJ. 6-08 2-1 February 2009 Revised July 2010 SECTION 2 RESEARCH ORIENTATION AND METHODS 2.1INTRODUCTION This section identifies research orientation, field and lab methods, special studies, and curation of recovered artifacts and ecofacts (i.e., bone, shell) for sites CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, and CA-SDI-14235 located within the Otay Ranch project area. The objective of the test program was to evaluate site significance with respect to City of Chula Vista and CEQA criteria. 2.2RESEARCH ORIENTATION Project description, environmental setting, and cultural history are discussed in Section 1, as are previous studies conducted for sites within the Otay Ranch project area. Selection of the research questions presented below is based on previous work and the potential of habitation, temporary camp, and artifact scatter sites to yield information important to the regional prehistory of San Diego County. Five research topics are presented: chronology, subsistence and paleoenvironmental reconstruction, settlement patterns, trade and travel, and lithic technology. 2.2.1Chronology What was the period(s) of use and/or occupation for the sites? Determining the period of occupation of a site or a region can be accomplished by the use of radiocarbon dating and relative dating. Radiocarbon dating depends on the retrieval of materials (i.e., bone, shell, charcoal) amenable to scientific analysis. Given previous PJ. 6-08 2-2 February 2009 Revised July 2010 work for Otay Mesa, radiocarbon dates for the Otay Ranch area may range from roughly 10,000 years ago to historic contact. Alternatively, relative dating is based on the recovery of specific artifacts that are temporally diagnostic. Temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered in context with associated radiocarbon dates include atlatl-dart points, arrow points, and ceramics. Obsidian sourcing and hydration rind measurements are also relative dating measures, as obsidian absorbs water at slow and somewhat constant rates. Obsidian from sources such as Obsidian Butte in Imperial Valley was available during the late Holocene, while obsidian from the Coso Volcanic Fields was available throughout the Holocene. In order to address the research questions posed, temporal placement of the sites is necessary. Previous work at site CA-SDI-12809 identified Late Period components as defined by the presence of pottery, small projectile (arrow) points, and radiocarbon dates (McGowan 1997). Data Needs Shell, bone, and/or charcoal will be needed for radiocarbon dating. These samples will be obtained from fire hearth features and lenses, whenever possible. If present, obsidian can be used to provide relative comparative temporal data. Relative dates can be inferred by the presence of temporally diagnostic artifacts. 2.2.2Subsistence and Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction Given the numerous sites in the Otay River Valley region, what subsistence patterns can be identified and have these patterns changed over time? Were acorns used at the sites? Did the collection of shellfish change over time? What influenced the changes: environment, populations, technologies, or combinations of these? What climatic changes occurred between 10,000 and 2,000 years ago and how did these changes affect available resources? PJ. 6-08 2-3 February 2009 Revised July 2010 The most pronounced environmental change for coastal southern California was the rise in sea level that occurred during the early to middle Holocene, with associated flooding of coastal valleys and the creation of lagoons. Evidence of environmental change in lagoons is based on analysis of core samples combined with radiocarbon dates and radiocarbon- dated shellfish samples taken from precontact sites near lagoons. Environmental studies using shellfish to explain site patterning and environmental change include Bull and Kaldenberg (1976), Gallegos (1985), Masters (1988), Miller (1966), Warren and Pavesic (1963), and Warren et al. (1961). Circa 3,500 years ago, sea level stabilized, causing an increase in siltation processes that eventually caused degradation of the lagoons during the late Holocene. In contrast to San Diego Bay, the environmental change for lagoons in San Diego County was more complex. San Diego Bay formed in the early Holocene and stayed open to the ocean throughout the Holocene (Gallegos and Kyle 1988). Similar to the north San Diego County lagoons, the Tijuana Lagoon cycled from an open lagoon to a closed mudflat estuary by 3,500 years ago. Thus, some precontact sites may reflect a changing environment and the loss of lagoonal shellfish and fish, whereas other sites dependent on San Diego Bay for resources may not reflect a shellfish change. Environmental changes have been documented for the coast, suggesting that climatic drying and accompanying vegetation changes took place over the past 7,000 years (Davis 1992). Special studies conducted on cultural material and recovered matrix at several Otay Mesa sites (located southeast of the present study area) have identified a number of plants that may have been present during the early and middle Holocene, but are not present today. Pollen studies suggest that pine trees, oak trees, and grassland communities were present in Otay Mesa during the early and middle Holocene. These resources were not present historically and possibly would not have been present during the late Holocene. This change in the environment would have influenced precontact availability of plants and animals, and the use of the region itself. PJ. 6-08 2-4 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Pine pollen and oak pollen were recovered from features at CA-SDI-8654 Locus D, a habitation site dated to more than 7,000 years ago, and from CA-SDI-8654 Locus B (CSRI 1983; Kyle et al. 1990). The pine pollen was attributed to “pollen rain,” probably from a source located near or in Otay Mesa or on adjacent mountains. Protein residue studies have identified piñon pine on two tools: a scraper plane and a scraper from CA- SDI-11674/12229/H, dated to circa 7,500 years ago (Cooley et al. 1996). Fossil pollen from CA-SDI-11079 included composites (sunflower family), blackberry (Celus), Cheno- Ams (Chenopodeaceae and Amaranthus in the family Aranthaceae), pine (Pinus), oak (Quercus), mustard (Brassica), wild buckwheat (Erodium cirutarium), and cattail (Typha angustifolia). Historically, pines were not present in the Otay Mesa region. Relic pine populations are currently present at Torrey Pines near Del Mar, 48.3 km (30miles) northwest of Otay Mesa, and in the upper elevations (5,000 to 6,500feet) of the Laguna Mountains, 56 km (35 miles) northeast of Otay Mesa (Beauchamp 1986). In addition, protein residue analysis has identified agave on one mano; prickly pear, deer, and rabbit on milling tools from CA-SDI-11424; and, Chenopodiaceae, Chia (Salvia columbar), grasses (Gramineae), deer, dog, and rabbit on flake and core tools from CA-SDI-11079. Future research should focus on pollen and phytolith studies, along with identification of protein residue on ground stone and flaked lithic tools recovered from habitation sites and temporary camps. Another research focus should be to determine the role of core/nodule tools and large unpatterned flake tools in the daily activities of early and middle Holocene populations (Schroth and Flenniken 1997a, 1997b). This topic raises several questions: What resources were present and being exploited that necessitated the use of these tools? Is tool use related to a wood working industry, a fiber production industry, or some other resource processing not yet determined? Did the prehistorically used tool kits reflect environmental change and associated changes in available resources? This research should focus on replicative use-wear studies along with microscopic analysis of tools. Environmental reconstruction to determine which resources were present should be integrated into the studies. PJ. 6-08 2-5 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Research Issues Precontact use of shellfish, fish, plants, and animals changed as environmental and subsequent resource availability changed. Early to middle Holocene Otay River Valley sites should reflect a change in resource availability and/or use. Protein residue studies on recovered tools, pollen studies, and phytolith analyses will identify plants not historically present. Data Needs Shellfish and bone fragments will be necessary for identification of species and frequency of occurrence. Pollen and phytolith from soil samples will be necessary for analysis. Pollen and phytolith preservation may be poor, and therefore, large quantities of soil may need to be processed to produce informative results. Since this is a costly procedure, it should only be undertaken when intact subsurface levels and/or features are present. Protein residue analysis from recovered ground stone implements and flaked lithic tools will also be necessary. It may be necessary to process relatively large numbers of ground stone and lithic tools to obtain protein residue information for habitation sites. 2.2.3Settlement Patterns What form of settlement pattern was practiced in the region? Did it change over time and in what manner? Early Period occupation in San Diego County is poorly understood. One hypothesis inferred by Warren (1964) is that La Jolla/Encinitas Tradition sites are restricted to the coastal zone. In California, ethnographic sources have been used to develop models for prehistoric hunter-gatherer settlement and subsistence patterns. Shipek’s model for the Luiseño (Shipek 1977) was one of sedentary villages located between the coast and the mountains in various ecological zones in northern San Diego County. True and Waugh (1982) propose a settlement configuration of foraging patterns with several residential PJ. 6-08 2-6 February 2009 Revised July 2010 shifts during the year. This settlement/subsistence configuration is correlated with particular river drainage systems, shifting in time to a bipolar system of permanent winter camps or villages in the western foothills and permanent summer camps in the mountains. This pattern during the Late Period included two or more permanent base camps with a number of associated special-purpose sites, such as quarry and milling sites (True et al. 1974; True and Waugh 1982). The winter base camp, occupied four to six months of a year, was the location where most ceremonies took place. The summer-fall camp was the acorn-collecting, hunting camp, usually located near an oak grove. During the spring, the village group was divided into smaller family groups, with each group occupying a small area where fresh vegetal resources could be procured, or where coastal shellfish could be collected. The small group compensated for the lack of resources after the depletion of the winter stores and prior to the next year’s harvest. The summer-fall camps reflected a coalescence of the kin group, with the larger winter camp composed of the total population (Bean and Shipek 1978; True and Waugh 1982; True et al. 1974). What form of settlement pattern was practiced in the region as reflected by the sites located within the portion of Otay Ranch presently under study? How does this form relate to patterns known for southern California as a whole and for the surrounding area specifically? Study Topics (a)Temporally, how do these sites fit into the overall pattern for San Diego County? That is, what group or culture is being examined in the context of the known culture history, and can we differentiate between period of occupation? PJ. 6-08 2-7 February 2009 Revised July 2010 (b)If the sites are representative of a specialized camp and/or gathering group, what were the sites’ function(s) and how do these sites relate to other sites: as base camps, special-use sites, or as extractive sites? (c)How did occupation and use of these sites contribute to seasonal or year-round occupation of the region in general? Data Needs (a)Recovery of temporally-sensitive and diagnostic materials (i.e., organic material for radiocarbon dating; obsidian source analysis; and, time-sensitive artifacts such as bifaces, projectile points, and beads). (b)Recovery of an adequate sample of artifacts and cultural debris (ecofacts) from the sites to determine site function. 2.2.4Trade and Travel To what extent are trade and travel evidenced in the region? The presence of Native American trails and trade activities between different cultural groups in the southern California regions was noted by early travelers and ethnographers. The procurement of lithic resources, such as desert lithics (i.e., certain types of chalcedony, chert, jasper, obsidian, and steatite) would identify contact with other cultural groups or travel away from the Otay River Valley and the surrounding area, as these materials are not available in the Otay River Valley area. Although trade items were often perishable, what archaeological evidence exists at the Otay Ranch sites? Several exotic lithic materials, such as steatite and obsidian, have been identified as trade items. Their occurrence at the Otay Ranch sites would aid in delineating travel/trade routes. More research with exotic lithic material found in context will be necessary to determine the extent of trade, what materials were traded, and if trade materials and routes changed through time. Generally, if obsidian is present at early and middle Holocene sites in San Diego County, then it was obtained from the Coso Range, located PJ. 6-08 2-8 February 2009 Revised July 2010 over 300 miles to the north of the Otay River Valley in north central California. Obsidian from late Holocene sites is usually Obsidian Butte obsidian from Imperial Valley. Obsidian was also available from Mexico and other sources not presently identified. Other lithic materials not local to the Otay River Valley region, but which may have come from nearby sources, include jasper, chert and chalcedony. These materials generally occur at sites as small retouch flakes or as finished items, suggesting that the items were procured in a finished stage, and that they were likely trade items. If they had been obtained by direct procurement, then the raw material and early stages of tool production would be present. Sources for these materials, as well as sites near the sources where the material was worked, need to be identified to more fully understand the trade network involved. Neutron activation analysis has been used successfully to source these exotic lithic materials. Steatite sources are present in southern San Diego County, and include a fairly large quarry: the Stonewall Quarry in Rancho Cuyamaca State Park in southern San Diego County (True 1970). Another known quarry, the Jacumba Valley Quarry, is located near the U.S./Mexico border, about 95 km (59 miles) from the Pacific Ocean (Polk 1972). Neutron activation has been used successfully to match specific steatite artifacts to specific sources or quarries and would provide valuable information for identifying trade/travel directions. The shell that occurs in cultural resource sites is evidence of travel to the coast, or trade with groups occupying coastal regions. The closest source of shellfish is approximately 10miles to the west of the sites. Given the short distance, the occupants likely traveled to the bay and beaches to acquire local shellfish for food. Did they obtain the Olivella sp. shell and make the spire-lopped beads, or did they trade for these decorative items? Were the Olivella sp. shells Pacific coast or Gulf of California species? PJ. 6-08 2-9 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Research Issues The trade network that brought obsidian to the Otay Ranch area should exhibit change through time. For the early to middle Holocene, obsidian trade will consist of north-south trending routes from the Coso Range to the Otay River Valley region; for the late Holocene, the obsidian trade pattern will change to east-west trending routes to Imperial Valley and south to Mexico. The steatite will come from one of the southern San Diego County sources, probably to the east. Other exotic lithics (jasper, chert, and chalcedony) will be from nearby sources. Early to middle Holocene Olivella sp. shell will be sourced to the Pacific Coast, whereas some of the late Holocene Olivella sp. shell will include Gulf of California species. Data Needs Obsidian artifacts need to be large enough (1-cm diameter minimum) for source identification and hydration rind measurements. A data bank of source fingerprinting should be compiled for chert, jasper, chalcedony, steatite, and other exotic lithics found in southern San Diego County. 2.2.5Lithic Technology How do the assemblages reflect the technological trajectories used by the precontact inhabitants? Which lithic reduction strategies were in use and when? Several flake-tool reduction strategies have been identified for the southern California coastal region. These include biface reduction, split-nodule core reduction, small blade core reduction, bipolar core reduction, and nodule reduction. The decision to use one or the other of these techniques was dependent on several factors, but the most important factors were the type of material that was worked, the morphology of the parent material, and the intended tool. Some lithic materials, such as Monterey chert and Piedra de PJ. 6-08 2-10 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Lumbre chert, are more easily worked, and with heat-treatment become some of the best knappable material in the western United States. Problems exist, however, in the form of the material in its raw state. Piedra de Lumbre chert generally occurs in small pieces, thus it was used extensively in the late Holocene for small arrow points (Pigniolo 1992). This material has been recovered from a site dating to 8,000 years ago (Gallegos 1991). Monterey chert occurs in small cobbles and in layers. For small cobbles, bipolar reduction would be the most efficient method of producing usable flakes. For the layered Monterey chert, biface reduction was the most expedient method of producing tools, as the layers were already thin, and only the outer perimeter needed to be worked (Cooley 1982). Other chert sources in San Diego County need to be identified and the material chemically characterized. Large biface production and reduction requires pieces of material large enough to be reduced, and homogeneous enough to produce workable items. Santiago Peak Volcanics found in San Diego County have been used extensively for the production of large tools (i.e., adzes, scrapers, scraper planes, cores, hammerstones) and bifaces (Schroth and Flenniken 1997a, 1997b). The use of quarry material from these formations may be an early to middle Holocene marker, as the larger spear and dart points would have necessitated the use of larger blocks of parent material. Nodule core reduction comprises numerous techniques with specific trajectories such as pyramidal-shaped split-nodule core reduction (used to produce thick, contracting flakes for flake tools), the production of Teshoa flakes for large flake tools and nodule core tools wherein the parent material rather than the removed flakes become tools. Cobble layers found in streambeds, across coastal terraces, and along the coast provided materials for these reduction sequences. Ground stone artifacts (i.e., manos, metates, and pestles) occur on sites throughout San Diego County, and especially at habitation sites, milling stations, and temporary camps. To date, little analysis has been conducted regarding ground stone manufacture and use, or change of use through time in the San Diego region. An analysis of debitage and lithic PJ. 6-08 2-11 February 2009 Revised July 2010 tools from site CA-SDI-10148, located south of the San Diego River near Santee, was completed by Flenniken (Kyle and Gallegos 1993). Flenniken determined that all of the flaked core/cobble tools recovered from the site were used for ground stone manufacture and rejuvenation, and that the debitage was the result of both tool manufacture and rejuvenation of ground stone grinding surfaces. Analysis of debitage and tools from habitation sites can provide information regarding manufacture, use, and rejuvenation of ground stone. Changes in resources and task-specific uses should be analyzed to determine if ground stone tools were designed for specific tasks, and if technological changes occurred through time as climate and resources changed. Assuming that sufficient quantities of lithic materials will be recovered, the following research hypotheses will be addressed. H0:Specific lithic reduction techniques have changed through time, with large biface reduction and steep-edged unifacial tools (SEUTs) dominating during the early and middle Holocene, and small biface reduction and nodule core reduction dominating during the late Holocene. H1:All reduction strategies were equally important throughout the Holocene. Study Topics (a)Which technological reduction strategies are present based on the debitage at the sites? (b)Which reduction strategies were used to produce which tools? Were these strategies the same or different? (c)Are recovered tools made from local or imported materials? (d)If ground stone tools are present, are the cobble materials local or non- local? (e)Is there evidence that ground stone tools were produced at the sites, or were they produced elsewhere and then carried to the sites? PJ. 6-08 2-12 February 2009 Revised July 2010 (f)How do technologies and stages of tool reduction relate to site function and tools recovered at the sites? (g)Can the recovered tool forms be assigned to specific culture groups? Data Needs (a)Collection of a sample of cores and debitage. (b)Detailed analysis of cores and debitage for technological attributes and reduction sequence classification. (c)Identification of the technological attributes and reduction sequences used to produce the tools. 2.2.6 Research Priorities Many of the research questions overlap, as they address environmental setting and precontact occupation. Research priorities for this study are: chronology, lithic technology, settlement pattern, and trade and travel. Data Needs Sites CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, and CA-SDI-14235 contain a moderate range of artifacts including flaked lithic tools and milling implements to address the research questions posed. The various lithic tools provide material for relative dating and assist in addressing questions concerning chronology and settlement pattern. Artifact types were analyzed with respect to chronology. 2.3FIELD METHODS The objective of the cultural resource study was to survey approximately 300 acres within the Otay Ranch project area, and to determine site significance under City of Chula Vista and CEQA criteria for cultural resources identified within the project area. (The PJ. 6-08 2-13 February 2009 Revised July 2010 proposed offsite storm drain, sewerline, and trail improvement area was separately surveyed and is discussed in Appendix G.) Testing and field methods included collection of surface artifacts, GPS site mapping, and excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) to determine site size, depth, content, integrity, and significance. (No testing of sites in offsite improvement areas was required, as the two sites had been previously tested.) Dennis R. Gallegos and Monica Guerrero provided project direction and overall management. Field personnel included Nick Doose, Lucas Piek, Brian Spelts, Brian Williams, and Larry Tift. GIS mapping was completed by Nick Doose. Carmen Lucas (Kwaaymii, Laguna Band of Indians) provided Native American monitoring services for fieldwork conducted. 2.3.1Survey Methods To the extent possible, the project area was intensively surveyed on foot using 10-m intervals between survey transects. Steep rugged terrain was not surveyed. 2.3.2STP Excavation STPs, 30 centimeters (cm) in diameter, were used to determine site size and depth. STPs were excavated in 10-cm levels, with all soil dry-screened using 1/8-inch hardware mesh. The artifacts and/or ecofacts removed were bagged by STP and by level. All results were provided on tables by STP number and are discussed by site number within this report. Intervals for STPs were 10, 20, and 40 meters (m), or placement near site boundaries. STPs were placed at the periphery of the sites to determine the site boundaries and locations. 2.4LABORATORY METHODS Karen E. Doose provided laboratory direction and ensured that artifacts were handled in a professional and proper manner, and that materials for special studies were submitted to subconsultants. Gallegos & Associates’ standard system of cleaning, cataloging, and PJ. 6-08 2-14 February 2009 Revised July 2010 analyzing cultural remains was used for artifacts recovered during this study. These procedures include cleaning and separating artifacts and ecofacts by material class by provenience prior to cataloging. Each item, or group of items, was counted, weighed and/or measured, and the information was entered into an electronic database, along with provenience, material class, functional category, and documentation of manufacturer marks and dates (for historical artifacts), and other diagnostic characteristics. Each item, or group of items, was given a consecutive catalog number marked on a separate label placed with the artifact in a 4-mm acid-free plastic curation bag. Additionally, each item was analyzed for specific characteristics particular to each material class. All cataloged items were divided into typological categories and placed within appropriately labeled boxes for interim storage at Gallegos & Associates’ cultural resource laboratory. Final curation will be at the San Diego Archaeological Center. All artifacts and ecofacts collected were treated using accepted and appropriate archaeological procedures. Initial laboratory work included washing and/or brushing artifacts and cataloging. Artifacts were sorted into classes, such as bifaces, cores, bone tools, beads, milling tools, and flakes. Cataloging provides basic data such as count, measurement, weight, material, condition, and provenience. The catalog also offers information as to horizontal and vertical distribution of cultural material. Specialized studies are conducted after the initial sorting and cataloging. The number and type of specialized studies completed for this report depends on the materials recovered and the level of research. Studies completed include lithic technological analysis. 2.4.1Lithic Analysis Analytical Methods Technological analyses based upon replicative data were conducted for all flaked stone artifacts recovered from the surface and subsurface from sites CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI- 14176, and CA-SDI-14235. All flaked stone artifacts were also examined to identify raw PJ. 6-08 2-15 February 2009 Revised July 2010 materials and reduction stage categories. Reduction stage flake categories were defined by comparing technological attributes of replicated artifacts from known and cataloged flaked stone tool reduction technologies to prehistoric controls. In turn, by comparing the prehistoric artifacts to the known artifacts in terms of manufacture, reduction stages were assigned to technologically diagnostic debitage. Some debitage, however, was considered technologically nondiagnostic, because of the lack of identifying attributes on fragmentary pieces. Technological debitage analysis based upon replicative data (Flenniken 1981) was selected over other analytical methods to obtain processual reduction stage identifications. Methods such as size grading (Ahler 1989), or morphological attribute analyses, which includes length, width, thickness, weight, or completeness of flake (Sullivan and Rozen 1985), do not allow processual anthropological modeling of specific technological activities. Analyses dependent on metric data provide the analyst with size- descriptive information only; they do not allow reliable identification of prehistoric behaviors. Metric analyses do not take into account crucial variables such as raw material quality, shape, and flakeability, nor do they consider the skill level of the prehistoric knapper, the reduction sequence(s), or the intended end product(s). Size grading of debitage as a form of “technological” analysis is also ineffectual as a means of providing accurate prehistoric lithic technological information (Scott 1985, 1990, 1991). In one, older, but relevant case study where samples of debitage from six different sites were subjected to both size-grading analyses and technological analyses in an effort to define the lithic reduction activities that occurred at each site, Scott (1985) found that “…size-grading artificially separates debitage into classes that do not accurately reflect lithic reduction.” Ahler’s (1989) twenty-year-old work concerning “mass analysis of flaking debris” is still considered to be a comprehensive study on the subject of size-grading analysis. However, even using experimental controls, size-grading analysis proves inadequate for making inferences as to the reduction process because of the qualifications placed on PJ. 6-08 2-16 February 2009 Revised July 2010 interpretive comparisons. For example, Ahler’s (1989) reduction model does not apply to multiple toolstone material sites wherein the size, shape, and quality of the original raw materials may have influenced reduction strategies. Multiple flaking episodes are said to require interpretation through multivariate statistical analysis even though statistics are not capable of “interpreting” data. Ahler’s (1989) approach provides little or no accurate technological information concerning lithic reduction techniques because of inherent methodological errors regarding scientific experimental procedure. Sampling of large assemblages combined with technological attribute and stage analysis is more informative than are low-level description of complete, large assemblages. Replicative systems analysis is a methodological concept designed to understand the behavior prehistorically applied to flaked stone artifacts (Flenniken 1981). The method involves replicating, through flintknapping experimentation, a hypothesized sequence (based upon debitage frequencies documented during analysis) of lithic reduction employed at a particular archaeological site. By comparing the prehistoric debitage with cataloged experimental debitage, it is possible to determine the reduction techniques and sequence(s) that were employed at a given site by prehistoric knappers. Experimentation has also demonstrated flakes associated with tool manufacture are frequently misidentified as functional tools, because of natural edge damage, most frequently small flake removal caused by production attrition and post-depositional activities (Flenniken and Haggarty 1979). The replicative systems analysis approach offers a reliable means to both identify and demonstrate the method(s) utilized by prehistoric knappers to reduce available toolstone into flaked stone tools and weapons. Because flintknapping techniques are learned rather than an innate behavior, reduction strategies can be both culturally and temporally diagnostic (Flenniken 1985; Flenniken and Stanfill 1980). Thus, by studying the reduction technologies employed at archaeological sites, it is possible, once the technological foundation based upon numerous technological analyses has been established, to correlate sites in time and space by identifying related or similar lithic technologies (Flenniken and Stanfill 1980). The correlations may aid future research PJ. 6-08 2-17 February 2009 Revised July 2010 involving descriptions of regional mosaics of human activity patterns as they vary through time. In regions where volcanic or acidic sediments preserve very little of the archaeological record except stone artifacts, or where prehistoric activities left little or no trace, this method of gathering information can be extremely productive. This approach to lithic analysis is useful and appropriate because it focuses on determining what lithic technologies were used at a particular site, how these technologies may have changed through time, and whether these changes correlate to specific time periods and/or geographic locations. Attributes identified on the prehistoric debitage, in conjunction with experimental analogs, were used to define technologically diagnostic debitage, enabling flakes to be assigned to specific experimentally derived reduction stages (Flenniken 1978, 1981). The remaining debitage was not ascribed to any reduction stage, because of the fragmentary nature of the specimens. These specimens were characterized as technologically nondiagnostic, although attributes such as material type and presence/absence and type of cortex were noted. Not all flaked stone reduction technologies are the same throughout prehistory even within one locality, or within one formed artifact class. For example, biface reduction sequences may vary technologically from site to site as a result of cultural/temporal differences even though the same raw lithic material is present at these sites. By identifying technologically diagnostic debitage from sites, specific reduction technologies can be easily segregated. A 100% sample of the flaked stone artifacts recovered from CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI- 14176, and CA-SDI-14235 was analyzed, identified, and assigned to specific technological categories (“tecats”) and reduction stages. Technologically diagnostic debitage was assigned to a specific reduction category, and served as the basis for interpretation of lithic technology. The surface and STP assemblages recovered from each site are intra-site similar in technological character. Because the assemblages are small and technological change was not spatially identified, all artifacts from each site PJ. 6-08 2-18 February 2009 Revised July 2010 were combined to form intra-site assemblages for the purpose of interpretation of the lithic technology at each site. Ground Stone Tools These tools were used primarily for vegetal processing; however, ethnographic records indicate that bone, clay for pottery, and pigments for paint were also ground with these implements (Gayton 1929; Kroeber 1925; Spier 1978). Ground stone tools were first separated into four groups: manos, metates, pestles, and mortar/bowls, recognizing, of course, that all four groups in actuality feature complex tools that have two primary parts. Attributes selected for the discussion of ground stone tools are most amenable to comparisons with similar artifacts from other sites in the region. Manos: Attributes important in the classification of manos include natural cobble or shaped, number of faces used (bifacial or unifacial) to determine extent of usage, end battering (presence or absence resulting from roughening grinding surfaces), outline, and cross-section. The shape of a mano can aid in identifying the type of metate (i.e., shallow or deep basin) used with the mano. Shaping is important in determining the length of occupation of the site, as the time needed to shape a proper mano would not be taken if the user only meant to employ the mano for a day or two and then discard it. Shaping denotes an unnecessary amount of time expended to make an object aesthetically pleasing. Metates: Ground stone fragments were identified as metate fragments based on the presence of at least one concave ground surface. Both slab (thin and portable) and block (thick and heavy) metates may be present. Some may have been used unifacially and others bifacially; denoting the amount of time spent grinding. PJ. 6-08 2-19 February 2009 Revised July 2010 2.5NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted to request information and/or input regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with the Otay Ranch project, as well as names of individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. Those individuals identified by the NAHC were contacted by letter and information as to cultural resources within the project area was requested. Additional project notification will be conducted through general public distribution of the environmental report. Carmen Lucas (Kwaaymii, Laguna Band of Indians) provided Native American monitoring services for fieldwork conducted. Carlene Chamberlain and Jesse Pinto from the Jamul Indian Village also visited the project area. 2.5.1Provisions for Encountering Human Remains If burials were encountered, fieldwork would cease at once in the immediate area of the burial. The person in direct charge of the project would contact the County of San Diego Coroner. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority, and if the Coroner has reason to believe that the human remains are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. The California NAHC, the local agency representative, and the authorized local tribal representative will review the case and provide input as to further action. Alternatives for the disposition of human remains and associated artifacts include: (1) leaving the human remains in situ; (2) uncovering the human remains for analysis in situ; (3)removing the human remains for analysis and curation; (4)removing the human remains for analysis and repatriation to Native Americans affiliated with the local area; and (5) removing the human remains with no analysis for repatriation to Native Americans affiliated with the local area. PJ. 6-08 2-20 February 2009 Revised July 2010 2.6CURATION All cultural materials, except burial-related artifacts and unless otherwise required by law, excavated or removed from precontact or historical cultural resource sites during testing and/or data recovery programs, along with associated project data, will be permanently curated ata qualified repository as defined by the “State of California Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections,” such as the San Diego Archaeological Center. Curation includes, but is not limited to, field notes, photographs, catalogs, and final reports. Additionally, the owner agrees to execute a release of title form and to pay the required curation fees in effect at the time of curation. All curation shall be accomplished within six months from the completion of the project. PJ. 6-08 3-1 February 2009 Revised July 2010 SECTION 3 SURVEY RESULTS 3.1 INTRODUCTION This study included a field survey of approximately 300 acres for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West project. A total of six cultural resource sites (CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, CA-SDI-14235, CA-SDI-14236, CA-SDI-17103, and P-37-014554) and 5 isolates (P-37- 014531, P-37-014532, P-37-014533, P-37-015008, and P-37-015145) were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project area. Survey methods, results, and summary are provided below. 3.2 SURVEY METHODS The entire project area was intensively surveyed on foot using 10-m intervals between survey transects. Field personnel included Nick Doose, Lucas Piek, Brian Spelts, Brian Williams, and Larry Tift. Carmen Lucas (Kwaaymii, Laguna Band of Indians) provided Native American monitoring services for fieldwork conducted. Within the boundaries of Village 8 West are areas identified as “Not a Part.” These include a reservoir area, which was previously studied, and a linear aqueduct. Both of these areas have been heavily impacted by construction. Both areas were included in the literature review and record search, which identified no recorded cultural resources within them. The reservoir area was not surveyed, but the aqueduct areas were revisited and surveyed as part of the present project. 3.3 SURVEY RESULTS The Otay Ranch project area was surveyed in October 2008. Ground visibility within the project area was poor along drainage areas, steep slopes, and most valley areas, and fair on knoll tops, dirt roads, and some valley areas. Portions not surveyed included limited areas of dense vegetation in drainage bottoms and very steep slopes. Vegetation, which PJ. 6-08 3-2 February 2009 Revised July 2010 was dense throughout much of the project area, consists of coastal sage scrub, cholla, and non-native grasses. The field survey was positive, relocating previously recorded sites CA-SDI-12287, CA- SDI-14176, and CA-SDI-14235 and identifying five new isolates (OR-I-3, OR-I-4, OR-I- 5, OR-I-6, and OR-I-7) (Figure 3-1). Site CA-SDI-14236 and isolates P-37-014531, P- 37-014532, P-37-014533, P-37-015008, P-37-015141, and P-37-015145 were not relocated during the current survey. It should be noted that a number of isolates had been previously collected (see Section 3.3.2). (Sites CA-SDI-4789 and CA-SDI-12809 were relocated during the survey of the offsite improvement area. One artifact was observed on the surface of each site. Survey methods and results are discussed in Appendix G.) 3.3.1 Previously Recorded Sites y CA-SDI-12287 Site CA-SDI-12287 was originally recorded by Rader and James (1991a) as an artifact scatter consisting of one metate fragment, one scraper, and one flake. A test program was conducted at CA-SDI-12287 that included collection of surface artifacts and excavation of nine STPs and one test unit (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008). As a result of the test program, site CA-SDI-12287 was identified as not significant under CEQA criteria (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008). The site was relocated during the current survey and additional cultural material was collected from the surface including 2 debitage, 2 manos, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment (see Figure 3-1). Disturbance at the site consists of previous agricultural activities and fill soil dumping. y CA-SDI-14176 Site CA-SDI-14176 was recorded by BFSA (1996a) as a temporary camp that consists of flakes, one metate, one chopper, three scrapers, one brown ware pottery sherd, and marine shell. The site was relocated during the current survey and cultural material was identified including 3 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 12 debitage, 2 battered implements, 2 PJ. 6-08 3-3 February 2009 Revised July 2010 FIGURE 3-1 SURVEY RESULTS FOR THE OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST PROJECT (See Confidential Appendix) PJ. 6-08 3-4 February 2009 Revised July 2010 battered implement flakes, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment (see Figure 3-1). Disturbance at the site consists of previous agricultural activities. y CA-SDI-14235 Site CA-SDI-14235 was recorded by BFSA (1996e) as a lithic scatter that consists of 5+ scrapers, 12+ flakes, and 1 hammerstone. The site was relocated during the current survey and the site boundary was expanded to incorporate additional artifacts including 2 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 5 debitage, and 2 battered implements (see Figure 3-1). Disturbance at the site consists of previous agricultural activities. y CA-SDI-14236 Site CA-SDI-14236 was recorded by BFSA (1996f) as a lithic scatter that consists of 7+ flakes, 2 retouched flakes, and 1 scraper. The site was not relocated during the current survey (see Figure 3-1). 3.3.2 Previously Recorded Isolates y P-37-014531 Isolate P-37-014531 was recorded by BFSA (1996h) as one isolate flake. The isolate was not relocated during the current survey (see Figure 3-1). y P-37-014532 Isolate P-37-014532 was recorded by BFSA (1996i) as one scraper. The isolate was not relocated during the current survey (see Figure 3-1). y P-37-014533 Isolate P-37-014533 was recorded by BFSA (1996j) as one flake. The isolate was not relocated during the current survey (see Figure 3-1). y P-37-015008 PJ. 6-08 3-5 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Isolate P-37-015008 was recorded by Serr (1990) as one metavolcanic flake. The isolate was not relocated during the current survey (see Figure 3-1). y P-37-015145 Isolate P-37-015145 was recorded by Rader and Mitchell (1991b) as one metavolcanic core (see Figure 3-1). The isolate was previously collected by ERCE. 3.3.3 Newly Recorded Isolates y OR-I-3 Isolate OR-I-3 was identified within the Village 8 West parcel. This isolate consists of one metavolcanic debitage, which was not collected (see Figure 3-1). No features or additional artifacts were noted. y OR-I-4 Isolate OR-I-4 was identified within the Village 8 West parcel. This isolate consists of one metavolcanic SEUT, which was not collected (see Figure 3-1). No features or additional artifacts were noted. y OR-I-5 Isolate OR-I-5 was identified within the Village 8 West parcel. This isolate consists of one metavolcanic SEUT, which was not collected (see Figure 3-1). No features or additional artifacts were noted. y OR-I-6 Isolate OR-I-6 was identified within the the Village 8 West parcel. This isolate consists of one metavolcanic SEUT, which was not collected (see Figure 3-1). No features or additional artifacts were noted. y OR-I-7 PJ. 6-08 3-6 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Isolate OR-I-7 was identified within the Village 8 West parcel. This isolate consists of one metavolcanic biface fragment (midsection), which was not collected (see Figure 3-1). No features or additional artifacts were noted. 3.4 SUMMARY A field survey was conducted for the approximately 300-acre Otay Ranch Village 8 West project area. Ground visibility within the project area was poor along drainage areas, steep slopes, and most valley areas, and fair on knoll tops, dirt roads, and some valley areas. The field survey was positive, relocating previously recorded sites CA-SDI- 12287, CA-SDI-14176, and CA-SDI-14235 and identifying five new isolates (OR-I-3, OR-I-4, OR-I-5, OR-I-6, and OR-I-7). Site CA-SDI-14236 and isolates P-37-014531, P- 37-014532, P-37-014533, and P-37-015008 were not relocated during the current survey. Isolate P-37-015145 was previously collected by ERCE. (Previously recorded sites in the offsite improvement area, CA-SDI-4789 and CA-SDI-12809, were relocated and are discussed in Appendix G.) PJ. 6-08 4-1 February 2009 Revised July 2010 SECTION 4 TEST RESULTS 4.1 INTRODUCTION As a result of the field survey for the approximately 300-acre Otay Ranch Village 8 West project, previously recorded sites CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, and CA-SDI-14235 were relocated, and five new isolates (OR-I-3, OR-I-4, OR-I-5, OR-I-6, and OR-I-7) were identified. Site CA-SDI-14236, and isolates P-37-014531, P-37-014532, P-37- 014533, and P-37-015008 were not relocated. Isolate P-37-015145 was previously collected by ERCE. Testing was conducted at sites CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235. Although site CA-SDI-12287 was previously tested (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008), additional artifacts were collected from the site surface during the current study. 4.2 TEST RESULTS Testing included collection of surface artifacts, excavation of STPs, and artifact cataloging and analysis (see Section 5 for analytical results). Test results are discussed below, with surface collection and subsurface testing discussed separately for each site. 4.2.1 Surface Collection ● CA-SDI-12287 Five surface artifacts were collected from site CA-SDI-12287 (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1). Cultural material recovered from the surface collection includes 2 debitage, 2 manos, 1 unidentified ground stone fragment, and shell. ● CA-SDI-14176 Twenty surface artifacts were collected from site CA-SDI-14176 (Table 4-2). Cultural material recovered from the surface collection includes 3 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 11 PJ. 6-08 4-2 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Table 4-1 CA-SDI-12287: Cultural Material Recovered Cultural Material Surface Quantity Debitage 2 2 Ground Stone 1 1 Mano 2 2 Total 5 5 PJ. 6-08 4-3 February 2009 Revised July 2010 FIGURE 4-1 CA-SDI-12287 AND SURFACE COLLECTION (See Confidential Appendix) PJ. 6-08 4-4 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Table 4-2 CA-SDI-14176: Cultural Material Recovered Cultural Material Surface STP 1 STP 2 Quantity Battered Implement 2 2 Battered Implement Flake 2 2 Debitage 11 1 12 Ground Stone 1 1 Steep-Edged Unifacial Tool (SEUT/adze) 3 3 SEUT Flake 1 1 Total 20 1 21 PJ. 6-08 4-5 February 2009 Revised July 2010 debitage, 2 battered implements, 2 battered implement flakes, and 1 unidentifed ground stone fragment. ● CA-SDI-14235 Four surface artifacts were collected from site CA-SDI-14235 (Table 4-3). Cultural material recovered from the surface collection includes 2 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 5 debitage, and 2 battered implements. 4.2.2 Shovel Test Pits (STPs) ● CA-SDI-14176 Two STPs were excavated to determine the presence or absence of subsurface materials and extent of the subsurface deposit (Figure 4-2). STP excavation resulted in one positive and one negative STP. Cultural material recovered from STP excavation includes one debitage (see Table 4-2). ● CA-SDI-14235 Two STPs were excavated to determine the presence or absence of subsurface materials and extent of the subsurface deposit (Figure 4-3). STP excavation resulted in two negative STPs (see Table 4-3). 4.3 SUMMARY Subsurface testing was conducted for previously recorded CA-SDI12287, CA-SDI- 14176, and CA-SDI-14235. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-12287 consists of 2 debitage, 2 manos, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14176 consists of 3 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 12 debitage, 2 battered implements, 2 battered implement flakes, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14235 consists of 2 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 5 debitage, and 2 battered implements. Site CA-SDI-12287 was previously tested and identified as not significant under CEQA criteria (Clowery-Moreno and Smith PJ. 6-08 4-6 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Table 4-3 CA-SDI-14235: Cultural Material Recovered Cultural Material Surfac e STP 1 STP 2 Quantity Battered Implement 2 2 Debitage 5 5 Steep-Edged Unifacial Tool (SEUT/adze) 2 2 SEUT Flake 1 1 Total 10 10 PJ. 6-08 4-7 February 2009 Revised July 2010 FIGURE 4-2 CA-SDI-14176: SURFACE COLLECTION AND STP LOCATIONS (See Confidential Appendix) PJ. 6-08 4-8 February 2009 Revised July 2010 FIGURE 4-3 CA-SDI-14235: SURFACE COLLECTION AND STP LOCATIONS (See Confidential Appendix) PJ. 6-08 4-9 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Smith); however, additional surface artifacts were identified and collected during the current survey. PJ. 6-08 5-1 February 2009 Revised July 2010 SECTION 5 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, AND CA-SDI-14235 5.1 INTRODUCTION This section provides the analytical results for cultural material recovered during the survey and test program for the Otay Ranch project. Total cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-12287 consists of 2 debitage, 2 manos, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14176 consists of 3 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 12 debitage, 2 battered implements, 2 battered implement flakes, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14235 consists of 2 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 5 debitage, and 2 battered implements. A special study lithic analysis was performed by J. Jeffrey Flenniken. 5.2 LITHIC ANALYSIS (by J. Jeffrey Flenniken) Technological lithic analyses based upon replicative data were conducted for all flaked stone artifacts identified from the samples recovered from CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI- 14176, and CA-SDI-14235. Technological identifications were determined for all analyzed flaked stone artifacts. Lithic artifacts were categorized according to toolstone material type, technological category, and reduction stage (Appendix C). As discussed above, reduction stage flake categories were defined by comparing technological attributes of replicated (experimental) artifacts from known and cataloged flaked stone tool reduction technologies to the prehistoric controls. In turn, by comparing the technological attributes of prehistoric artifacts (controls) to the technological attributes of known artifacts in terms of manufacture, reduction stages were assigned to technologically diagnostic debitage. Some debitage, however, was considered technologically nondiagnostic because of the lack of technological attributes (i.e., platforms) on fragmentary pieces. Therefore, attributes evidenced on the prehistoric debitage, in conjunction with experimental analogs, were used to identify technologically PJ. 6-08 5-2 February 2009 Revised July 2010 diagnostic debitage that enabled flakes to be assigned to specific experimentally derived reduction stages (Flenniken 1978, 1981). The remaining debitage was not ascribed to any reduction stage because of the fragmentary nature of the artifacts. Fragmentary debitage was characterized as technologically nondiagnostic, although attributes such as material type, and presence/absence and type of cortex were noted. 5.2.1 Analyzed Samples The flaked lithic assemblage from CA-SDI-12287 consists of only two artifacts, both flakes (Table 5-1); the CA-SDI-14176 assemblage is made up of 15 flakes and 5 formed artifacts (Table 5-2); and CA-SDI-14235 comprises 6 flakes and 4 formed artifacts (Table 5-3). The assemblages from all three sites provide technological evidence for nodule core reduction. Collections recovered from these sites are valuable additions to the identified reduction technologies as well as insights into site activities. Each flaked stone artifact from these three samples was analyzed and recorded as a separate entity in an attempt to identify reduction technologies and site activities. These samples provided technological information concerning one reduction technology (nodule core reduction) and at least two site activities, which included wood working (SEUTs/adzes) and plant processing (battered implements). 5.2.2 Technological Artifact Categories (tecats) Analysis of the debitage and formed artifacts from these samples identified one technology, nodule core reduction continuum (Figure 5-1). Debitage classification attributes were divided into technological categories that reflect technological differences in the reduction continuum and reduction stages that occurred at these sites. Continuum is defined as a process that includes the entire life cycle of a specific flaked stone tool (including all debitage) from the selection of the raw lithic material, initial decortication, PJ. 6-08 5-3 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Table 5-1 CA-SDI-12287: Flaked Stone Assemblage Debitage Toolstone Material TECAT MV Totals NP-11 1 1 Flake Frag/wc 1 1 Totals 2 2 Artifact Total 2 2 MV = Metavolcanic /wc = with cortex PJ. 6-08 5-4 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Table 5-2 CA-SDI-14176: Flaked Stone Assemblage Debitage Toolstone Material TECAT MV Totals NP-10 1 1 SFP-10 1 1 SFP-11 5 5 1005.AZ Flake 1 1 1021.BI Flake 2 2 Flake Frag/wc 2 2 Flake Frag/woc 3 3 Totals 15 15 Formed Artifacts TECAT MV Totals 1005.AZ 3 3 1021.BI 2 2 Totals 5 5 Artifact Total 20 20 MV = Metavolcanic /wc = with cortex /woc = without cortex PJ. 6-08 5-5 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Table 5-3 CA-SDI-14235: Flaked Stone Assemblage Debitage Toolstone Material TECAT MV Totals NP-2 1 1 NP-11 1 1 SFP-10 2 2 MFP-11 1 1 1005.AZ Flake 1 1 Totals 6 6 Formed Artifacts TECAT MV Totals 1005.AZ 2 2 1021.BI 2 2 Totals 4 4 Artifact Total 10 10 MV = Metavolcanic Simplified Example of Nodule Core Reduction Process FIGURE 5-1 Gallegos & Associates PJ. 6-08 5-7 February 2009 Revised July 2010 heat treatment (if applicable), reduction into the original tool, use and reuse of that tool (which may be multi-functional), rejuvenation of that tool, the deposition of that tool into archaeological context, and possible reuse of that tool later in prehistoric time (see Figure 5-1). Reduction stage, as employed for analytical purposes only, is a concept designed to separate a flintknapping continuum. The reduction-oriented technological stages (processes) employed in this analysis, the flake categories, based upon replicated artifacts that correspond to those processes, and the flake attributes used to define those categories are within the nodule core reduction technology that was well established in prehistoric southern California. 5.2.3 Nodule Core Reduction Nodule core reduction is known in the southern California archaeological literature as “Cobble Core Reduction” (Gallegos et al. 2002; Gallegos et al. 2003). The term nodule was substituted for cobble because the term cobble is geologically defined as a size clast (64-256 mm) and many prehistoric core and core-based artifacts (such as some battered implements, adzes, etc.) were manufactured from boulders (>256 mm), and to a much lesser extent, pebbles (4-64 mm). The term nodule was selected because a nodule can be any size and tends to be somewhat rounded to subrounded. Nodule core debitage was recognized and grouped into technological categories based on the amount and location of dorsal cortex, platform attributes, dorsal arris count and direction, and flake cross/long-section shape. Debitage was classified according to three platform types identified among the flakes from nodule core reduction: natural/cortical platforms (NP), single-facet platforms (SFP), and multi-faceted platforms (MFP). Flakes were further subdivided according to the location of dorsal cortex: tecats include NP-1 through NP-11, SFP-1 through SFP-11, and MFP-1 through MFP-11 (see Appendix C). The reduction-oriented technological categories of diagnostic flakes were also segregated on the basis of geological material (metavolcanic and quartz). Flake fragments that PJ. 6-08 5-8 February 2009 Revised July 2010 lacked the necessary attributes to be placed in one of these reduction-oriented tecats were classified as technologically nondiagnostic debitage (Flake Fragment) with cortex (/wc) and without cortex (/woc). Only raw material type and presence or absence of cortex were recorded for these artifacts. Interpretation of the reduction sequence from this sample of sites was determined using only the technologically diagnostic debitage, whereas discussions concerning lithic raw material types include all debitage and formed artifacts. Metavolcanic nodules (cobbles and boulders) were selected for size, shape, material quality, and platform location. Nodules with natural platforms were reduced directly by percussion in a circular manner around the natural platform. The location of dorsal cortex indicates the sequence of flake removals. Cores with faceted platforms were nodules that required platform preparation prior to reduction. This occurred usually when a nodule of quality material was selected, but the nodule did not possess a naturally appropriate platform. It was, therefore, necessary to create a platform by percussion flaking. The desired products of nodule core reduction were flake blanks that were thick in cross-section, long and narrow in plan-view, and ranged in length depending upon intended use, but were most likely 3 to 12 cm in length. 5.2.4 Toolstone Materials The lithic materials employed by the prehistoric knappers at these three sites included a variety of metavolcanic rocks collected from alluvial deposits. All (100%) of the identified cortex was incipient cone cortex resulting from water transportation of the lithic nodules. Toolstone was prehistorically collected from alluvial environments. Metavolcanic materials are found as pebbles, cobbles, boulders, and bedrock derived from Eocene volcanic rhyolites, andesites, and diabase of basaltic composition (Clevenger 1982). These materials have been extensively metamorphosed causing structural recrystallization and a rather porphyritic nature (Clevenger 1982). Metavolcanic rocks range in color from green to brown to black, and require great PJ. 6-08 5-9 February 2009 Revised July 2010 dynamic loading forces to fracture conchoidally. Distinctive Santiago Peak Metavolcanic (green, fine-grained metavolcanic material known locally as “felsite”), found as bedrock in San Diego County and redeposited as float, was well represented in these analyzed assemblages. 5.2.5 Analytical Results for CA-SDI-12287 CA-SDI-12287 produced only two artifacts, one NP-11 flake (natural cortical platform, no dorsal cortex) and one flake fragment with cortex (Flake Frag/wc) (see Table 5-1). 5.2.6 Analytical Results for CA-SDI-14176 The CA-SDI-14176 collection includes 20 flaked stone artifacts (see Table 5-2). Fifteen artifacts are complete and fragmentary flakes: one represents natural platform reduction (NP-10), six represent single-facet platform nodule core reduction (SFP-10 and SFP-11), one was identified as a SEUT/adze resharpening flake (1005.AZ Flake), one was identified as a battered implement use flake (1021.BI Flake), two are flake fragments with cortex (Flake Frag/wc), and three are flake fragments without cortex (Flake Frag/woc). The five remaining artifacts included three SEUTs/adzes (1005.AZ) and two battered implements (1021.BI). Site activities included nodule core reduction, woodworking, and plant processing. 5.2.7 Analytical Results for CA-SDI-14235 This analyzed assemblage consists of 10 flaked stone artifacts (see Table 5-3). All three platform configurations are represented in the debitage (NP-2, NP-11, SFP-10, and MFP- 11) in this small sample along with one SEUT/adze resharpening flake (1005.AZ Flake), two SEUT/adzes (1005.AZ), and two battered implements (1021.BI). Site activities included nodule core reduction, woodworking, and plant processing. PJ. 6-08 5-10 February 2009 Revised July 2010 5.2.8 Technological Summaries Nodule Core Reduction Nodule core reduction technology is the most common core technology identified in these samples (Gallegos et al. 2002; Gallegos et al. 2003). Products of nodule core reduction are also the most abundant as measured by percent of technologically diagnostic flakes (see Tables 5-1 through 5-3). Expedient technology may have been so commonly used because it provided a simple and relatively effortless way to produce flakes intended for immediate use or transport. Because of the local (San Diego County) abundance of metavolcanic materials, there was often little need for more material- efficient and consequently more time-consuming technologies (see Figure 5-1). Debitage produced from nodule core reduction was classified according to the pattern of dorsal cortex present (if any), dorsal arris patterns, and platform attributes. Dorsal cortex attributes provide clues concerning two processes: stage of reduction and patterning of flake removals. The amount of cortex will decrease through the reduction sequence. Flakes with 100% dorsal cortex (NP/SFP/MFP-1s), therefore, usually result from earlier portions of the sequence while flakes with no dorsal cortex (NP/SFP/MFP-11s) result from the latter portions of the sequence. The abundance of flakes that lack dorsal cortex exist because, once cortex is removed from a nodule early in the reduction sequence, all subsequent flakes will lack dorsal cortex. The positioning of dorsal cortex results from the patterning of flake removals (clockwise, counter-clockwise, or unpatterned in relation to the platform). The analysis of these debitage samples did, to a limited degree, reveal a potentially meaningful pattern regarding flake removal (very little cortex). Another aspect of variability seen in the nodule core reduction debitage assemblages relates to platform characteristics. This variability also appears to result purely from technological considerations, rather than, for instance, a “mental template” to which PJ. 6-08 5-11 February 2009 Revised July 2010 might be attached some chronological or ethnic significance. Three examples of platforms are frequently found (unprepared/natural/cortical [NP], single-facet [SFP], and multi-faceted [MFP]), and they vary, in part, according to the amount of shaping required to obtain a suitable platform configuration for successful flake removals (a uniform platform surface and adequate platform-to-core face angle). Some nodules did not require shaping (natural platforms) to obtain a proper platform configuration; others required more (multi-faceted platforms) or less (single-facet platforms) shaping. It is expected that these different platform types could be produced within a single reduction sequence as a result of adjustments made in response to the changing shape of the core as it was reduced. One source of inter-site variation may relate to the portion of the nodule core reduction sequence conducted at these sites. It appears that cores were not always entirely reduced at a single location, but rather initial shaping may have been performed at one site, and subsequent core reduction performed at another. This is indicated at some sites where few early stage flakes were found, but later stage flakes were common. Alternatively, this pattern could be explained as a result of sampling bias resulting from the randomness of mainly surface collections. 5.2.9 Functional Summaries Wood Working A total of 5 SEUTs/adzes (1005.AZ) were identified from these collections (see Tables 5- 1 through 5-3) and combined with SEUT/adze resharpening flakes (1005.AZ Flake), a strong argument can be supported for wood working as a major activity that occurred at these sites. These formed artifacts as well as debitage exhibit use-wear in the form of working-edge polish and planer-surface striations. SEUTs/adzes, effective wood working tools (Gallegos et al. 2002; Gallegos et al. 2003), are typically “...circular or semi-circular in outline form and have a low profile from the PJ. 6-08 5-12 February 2009 Revised July 2010 frontal view with the contiguous planer use-wear located near the working element” (Schroth and Flenniken 1997a, 1997b). SEUTs/adzes also may possess different shaped working/cutting edges or elements. These different shaped cutting edges provide different woodcutting functions, much like modern, metal wood working tools. Adzes varied in size and weight, both attributes were related to specific functions. The larger adzes were employed to remove larger amounts of wood-mass, whereas the smaller adzes were used for more well controlled wood-mass removal. Plant Processing The identification of 4 battered implements (1021.BI) and 2 battered implement flakes (1021.BI Flake) from these sites suggest plant processing tools (mano and metates) were used and resharpened at these sites (see Tables 5-1 through 5-3). Prehistoric flaked stone assemblages from southern California, Utah, Nevada, as well as the American Southwest contain a common artifact identified by archaeologists by a variety of names including chopper, hammerstone, pounder, muller, milling stone, flaked hammerstone, handstone, battered hammerstone, masher, basher, utilized core, scraper planes, pecking stone, fist ax, hand ax, to name a few (Dodd 1979; Wallace 1978). Many of these artifacts are employed as archaeological identifiers of specific prehistoric cultures (Wallace 1954; Kowta 1969). Others are simply weighed, measured, and described generally as plant and animal resource processing tools. Dodd (1976, 1979) and others (Ambler 1985; Geib 1986), however, have devoted considerable time and energy to the identification and function of a rather unsophisticated, but highly specialized and important prehistoric tool class, battered hammerstones. Battered hammerstones are separated from the other artifact classes on the basis of pock marks located on one or more intentionally prepared areas on a single tool that are a result of repeated pounding against another hard object. These implements are most frequently produced from conchoidal fracturing, subrounded to subangular, spherical to discoidal, cobble-sized, quartzite, chert, metavolcanic, and volcanic nodular alluvial materials. PJ. 6-08 5-13 February 2009 Revised July 2010 The manufacturing process includes the selection of a check-free rock (or, most likely an exhausted nodule core or exhausted SEUT/adze) of the appropriate material and size. After material selection, a unifacial or bifacial sinuous edge (or platform edge on a flake core) was produced by direct free hand percussion. The sinuous edge may have been situated on the side of the nodule, end of the nodule, or completely surrounding the nodule. The debitage produced as a result of edge manufacture is characteristic of initial cobble reduction, but is not well-patterned because of the variation in size, shape, and quality of the selected cobble. Because a sinuous edge was the “intended end product,” general debitage characteristics may include cortex (in varying amounts) on the dorsal surfaces and platforms, few dorsal surface arrises, hinge terminations, thick flake cross- sections, angular flake plan-views, single-facet platforms, and more rarely, multi-faceted platforms. Once the sinuous edges were produced to satisfaction, the linear-edged hammerstone was ready for use. The use of these hammerstones produced battered edges: the longer the use, the more intense the battering. At some time during the use process, the battered hammerstone required resharpening. Resharpening included the removal of flakes by direct free hand percussion along the sinuous margin until the battered edge surfaces were partially or totally eliminated. A portion of the debitage produced during the resharpening process is very distinctive in that the battered edge that was once on the hammerstone is present on the proximal end of the dorsal surface of the resharpening flake. Additionally, some battered implement flakes are produced during use (block [battered implement] on block [metate]). However, flakes that do not exhibit battering on their dorsal surface were also produced, and are impossible to assign to the resharpening process. Once again, the hammerstone was ready for use. After numerous use/resharpening events, battered tools were discarded into archaeological context. These discarded battered implements occur as exhausted, well-worn, intensely battered tools or as resharpened, sharp-edged, small hammerstones with isolated areas of intense battering on one or more previously used margins. The latter were discarded because they were too small and lacked the specific gravity to function efficiently. PJ. 6-08 5-14 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Experimental (Flenniken et. al 1993) and ethnographic data (Bartlett 1933; Hayden and Nelson 1981; Hill 1982; Hough 1897; Lange 1959; Michelsen 1967; Simpson 1952) document ground stone tools (mainly manos and metates) were manufactured, sharpened, and resharpened with battered implements (Flenniken et al. 1993). The sample of battered implements and battered implement flakes from these sites support resharpening of manos and metates, plant processing tools. 5.2.10 Lithic Analysis Summary Nodule core reduction provided prehistoric southern Californian knappers with the flake blanks necessary to manufacture all of the needed formed artifacts to effectively exploit their environments (see Figure 5-1). The most common formed artifacts recovered from southern California sites included unaltered flake tools as cutting and/or scraping implements, minimally altered flake tools used for cutting and/or scraping, SEUTs/adzes (frequently classified as a type of flake core), and battered implements. Exhausted nodule cores varied in size depending upon the required size of the intended flake blanks and/or the size needed for laterally cycled artifacts such as a SEUT/adze or battered implement. Often, adzes and battered implements were manufactured from exhausted cores (see Figure 5-1). Therefore, core reduction may have been terminated at a specific size and weight, so that the “exhausted” core could serve as a “blank” for some other tool where a specific size and weight were required. SEUTs/adzes and battered implements appear to have been manufactured from both large flake blanks, as well as exhausted nodule cores (see Figure 5-1). Therefore, based upon the above discussions, near-exhausted nodule cores were likely transported to these sites, were exhausted (by flake blank removal) and/or reworked to serve as blanks for SEUTs/adzes and battered implements. Alternatively, because exhausted nodule cores were not identified from these sites, adzes and battered implements, as completed formed artifacts, may have been transported to these sites to conduct wood working activities and resharpening plant processing tools. In addition, because metavolcanic materials are readily available at PJ. 6-08 5-15 February 2009 Revised July 2010 these locations, some large flakes may have been produced “on the spot” to manufacture both SEUTs/adzes and battered implements. 5.3 GROUND LITHIC ARTIFACTS 5.3.1 Manos As a result of the survey and test program one mano fragment and one complete mano were recovered from site CA-SDI-12287. Both manos recovered from this site are composed of natural unshaped granitic cobbles from locally available sources. The overall curvature of each mano face is slight indicating that the opposing milling surface the manos were ground against (i.e., metates, bedrock milling slicks or basins) was shallow in form. 5.3.2 Ground Stone Fragment Two unidentified ground stone fragments were recovered from sites CA-SDI-12287 and CA-SDI-14176. A ground stone fragment is a piece of a ground stone implement that has at least one ground surface, but lacks any defining attributes that would facilitate tool identification. 5.4 FAUNAL REMAINS A total of 119 g of shell was collected from the surface at CA-SDI-12287; however, the presence of shell on the surface appears to be a secondary deposit from fill soil that had been deposited at the site. 5.5 SUMMARY Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-12287 consists of 2 debitage, 2 manos, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14176 PJ. 6-08 5-16 February 2009 Revised July 2010 consists of 3 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 12 debitage, 2 battered implements, 2 battered implement flakes, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14235 consists of 2 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 5 debitage, and 2 battered implements. Given the artifact assemblages, activities that occurred at sites CA-SDI-14176 and CA- SDI-14235 likely included woodworking and plant processing. In addition, sites CA- SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235 provided an assemblage of adequate size to interpret site flaked stone reduction techniques (nodule core reduction). As only two debitage were recovered from CA-SDI-12287, flaked stone reduction techniques were not identified. However, the presence of two manos and one unidentified ground stone fragment suggests that minimally plant processing occurred at the site. All lithic artifacts were composed of locally available metavolcanic and granitic lithic materials. PJ. 6-08 6-1 February 2009 Revised July 2010 SECTION 6 SITE DISCUSSION 6.1 PRECONTACT RESEARCH QUESTIONS Research questions were addressed to provide a theoretical framework for the test program. The following section addresses research questions posed in Section 2. For the test program, these research topics were used to generally guide the study; however, sufficient materials to answer all the research questions were not recovered. Given the nature of the project, the research questions were addressed on the level of the cultural material recovered. Research questions regarding chronology, subsistence and paleoenvironmental reconstruction, settlement patterns, trade and travel, and lithic technology are addressed below. 6.1.1 Chronology What was the period of Native American occupation for the Otay River Valley region? No materials were collected during the current study to provide radiocarbon dates; however, the presence of SEUTs/adzes (wood working tools) offers a relative date of early to middle Holocene. Given the present climate and the near absence of trees in the Otay River Valley region, it can be surmised that the environment has changed from a wetter, cooler climate (early to middle Holocene) that once supported trees to the drier present-day climate (late Holocene) that does not support trees. In addition, previous work at site CA-SDI-12809 identified Late Period components as defined by the presence of pottery, small projectile (arrow) points, and radiocarbon dates (McGowan 1997). 6.1.2 Subsistence and Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction Given the numerous sites in the Otay River Valley region, what subsistence patterns can be identified and have these patterns changed over time? Were acorns used at PJ. 6-08 6-2 February 2009 Revised July 2010 the sites? Did the collection of shellfish change over time? What influenced the changes: environment, populations, technologies, or combinations of these? What climatic changes occurred between 10,000 and 2,000 years ago and how did these changes affect available resources? As discussed previously, the kinds of tools and debitage recovered were identified as SEUTs/adzes and battered implements. The presence of wood working tools suggests that trees were available at the time of occupation. Given the present climate and the near absence of trees in the Otay River Valley region, it can be surmised that the environment has changed from a wetter, cooler climate that once supported trees to the drier present-day climate that does not support trees. In addition, the presence of milling tools, battered implements, and battered implement debitage supports milling of vegetal materials. 6.1.3 Settlement Pattern What form of settlement pattern was practiced in the region? Did it change over time and in what manner? The precontact sites within and/or adjacent to the Otay Ranch Village 8 West project area comprise 3 lithic scatters, 1 artifact scatter, 1 temporary camp, and 1 habitation site. Previous work at site CA-SDI-12809 (habitation site) identified primarily Late Period occupation (McGowan 1997). However, the presence of SEUTs suggests Early Period occupation for some of the Otay Ranch sites. The smaller sites and isolates are likely representative of satellite and/or task-specific campsites to a main habitation/village site in the region. 6.1.4 Trade and Travel To what extent are trade and travel evidenced in the region? PJ. 6-08 6-3 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Early travelers and ethnographers noted the presence of Native American trails and observed trade activities among different cultural groups in the southern California region. The procurement of lithic resources, such as desert lithics (i.e., certain types of chalcedony, chert, jasper, obsidian, and steatite), would identify contact with other cultural groups or travel from the Otay River Valley region to acquire these stone resources, as these materials are not locally available. For sites CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, and CA-SDI-14235, the lithic material employed by Native American knappers was metavolcanic and granitic. Santiago Peak Metavolcanic, found locally as bedrock and redeposited as float on the Otay Formation, primarily represented the non-milling tool assemblage. Milling tools are primarily composed of granitic material found in the Otay River Valley or east of the San Ysidro Mountains. Therefore, all lithic materials collected as a result of this study are identified as local materials. 6.1.5 Lithic Technology (by J. Jeffrey Flenniken) What technological trajectories were used by the precontact inhabitants? Which lithic reduction strategies were in use and when? Only sites CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235 provided an assemblage of adequate size to interpret site flaked stone reduction techniques. Flintknapping activities at CA-SDI- 14176 and CA-SDI-14235 were limited to nodule core reduction. Usable flake blanks, defined here as cortex-free flakes of usable length, width, and thickness, were not identified at this site, which suggests that usable flakes were transported to another location and were used as tools (flake tools). Debitage recovered from CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235 represents primarily SEUT/adze use/resharpening debitage and battered implement use/resharpening debitage. SEUT/adze manufacture generally produces debitage that is unsuitable for flake blanks, as the flintknapping goal in SEUT production is not to generate usable flake blanks, but rather to create an acceptable cutting edge while maintaining tool weight. Flakes produced from SEUT manufacture PJ. 6-08 6-4 February 2009 Revised July 2010 frequently terminate in steps and hinges, leaving negative steps and hinges on the tools and creating the appearance of poorly made flake cores. The interpretation of the SEUT as a poorly-made tool or an exhausted core is common in the southern California archaeological literature. This interpretation further suggests that precontact inhabitants of southern California used “crude” tools to perform simple tasks, when actually these tools were specifically designed and well suited for a wide variety of sophisticated wood working tasks. The variation in wood working tools can be seen in six different classes of SEUT edges or bits. Nodule Core Reduction Nodule core reduction technology is the core technology identified at CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235. Nodule core reduction debitage and/or exhausted nodule cores (some battered implements) are present in the site assemblages. Products of nodule core reduction are also the most abundant at the sites when measured as a percentage of technologically diagnostic flakes. This simple and expedient technology may have been commonly used because it provided a quick and relatively effortless way to produce useful flakes and flake blanks intended for further reduction. Because of the local abundance of metavolcanic materials, there was little need for more material-efficient and consequently more time-consuming technologies. Variability in comparison to other assemblages is explained by several factors: the shape and size of raw material packages, stage of reduction, and site-specific knapping activities. Battered Implements Battered implements are defined as tools employed prehistorically and ethnographically to shape, sharpen, and resharpen manos and metates (Flenniken et al. 1993). Two battered implements were recovered from CA-SDI-14176 and two from CA-SDI-14235 (Table 6-1). The presence of battered implements and milling implements from the Otay Ranch sites strongly suggests the inhabitants exploited plant and animal materials that required processing using manos and metates. PJ. 6-08 6-5 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Table 6-1 Total Artifacts Recovered Cultural Material CA-SDI- 12287 CA-SDI- 14176 CA-SDI- 14235 Total Battered Implement 2 2 4 Battered Implement Flake 2 2 Debitage 2 12 5 19 Ground Stone 1 1 2 Mano 2 2 Steep-Edged Unifacial Tool (SEUT/adze) 3 2 5 SEUT Flake 1 1 2 Total 5 21 10 36 PJ. 6-08 6-6 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Steep-Edged Unifacial Tools (SEUTs/Adzes) Southern California archaeology has been plagued for years with amorphous lumps of metavolcanic stone that possess steep unifacial edges. These objects have long been recognized by archaeologists as artifacts, and have been placed into numerous morphological and functional categories (i.e., horse-hoof scraper, scraper plane, flake scraper, biscuit scraper, humped-back scraper, various core types, push plane, and cobble chopper). Schroth and Flenniken’s (1997a, 1997b) analysis of flaked stone tools from CA-SDI-11424 is, by far, the best effort to sort these artifacts into technological and functional categories. These SEUTs are likely adzes specifically designed for a wide variety of wood working tasks. SEUTs were manufactured from thick flake blanks (8 cm or more), exhausted nodule cores, and, more frequently, directly from nodules specifically selected for SEUT manufacture. SEUTs are plano-convex in cross-section, have steep sides, are almost circular in plan-view, are heavy, and, most importantly, have a variety of strong, acute cutting edges. Many examples possess use-wear in the form of polish on their edges as well as on their flat or plano surfaces. These tools are ideal for wood working because they are sharp, weighted, and durable. Brian Hayden’s (1979) ethnographic study in Australia, Palaeolithic Reflections, describes in detail the manufacture and use of SEUTs. SEUTs were used as adzes in heavy-duty wood working tasks by the native people of Australia. Given that the environments of Australia and southern California are very similar, and that wood was essential for many precontact items, southern California SEUTs were likely used in a similar manner. This functional interpretation is suggested because the tools from California are the same as those from Australia in terms of manufacture, material quality, size, shape, wear-patterns, and overall variation. Additionally, experiments described by Schroth and Flenniken (1997a, 1997b) support the use of SEUTs as adzes. Morphological variation within the SEUT category is, perhaps, the main reason for the numerous scraper and plane categories. However, this variation in size and weight was a PJ. 6-08 6-7 February 2009 Revised July 2010 technological consideration for the various tasks required of these tools. With basically the same attributes, except size and weight, these tools functioned as adzes where different sizes and weights were essential for the different tasks at hand. In addition to size and weight, the most critical attribute was the acute, sharp cutting edge. When this edge became dull through wood working, the tool was resharpened or rejuvenated by removing flakes from the steep face while employing the plano-surface as a platform. These flakes (URFs) are diagnostic of SEUT rejuvenation. In previous analyses (Gallegos et al. 2000), these adzes were divided into thick (SEUT) and thin (TEUT) categories. The thin-edged unifacial tool or TEUT category of adze has been determined, through continued analyses of Otay Mesa artifact assemblages from early to middle Holocene sites and through experimental use, to be of minimal archaeological value. Thin-edged unifacial tools were originally defined as the same technologically and functionally as SEUTs, with the exception that all TEUTs were manufactured from flake blanks, and were thinner. It is suggested that the actual cutting edges of both tool classes are virtually identical, and that the steepness of the tool’s edge has to do with added weight, not cutting ability. In other words, heavier tools have steeper edges, but the actual cutting edges on both thin and thick adzes have the same cutting ability. Additional analyses also determined that both thick and thin adzes were manufactured from flake blanks and exhausted cores, as well as from nodules. As mentioned above, the thickness of the tool is important because of the weight required for a specific woodworking task, but cutting edge shape has also been identified as an important woodworking attribute. Recent experimental use of SEUTs suggests that the tool must possess a strong, sharp, and contoured cutting edge. The angle of the actual cutting edge is determined by flake removal. Most SEUTs have adequate cutting edges once the edges have been initially sharpened or rejuvenated by percussion flake removal. Flake production, as intended end products during edge preparation, was not the knapper’s goal. Therefore, step and hinge terminations on the “face” (or steep sides) of SEUTs are common. Large flakes were not PJ. 6-08 6-8 February 2009 Revised July 2010 intentionally removed because the weight of the adze would have been diminished; an unwanted result. The SEUT manufacturing process at sites CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235 may have taken a minimum of four trajectories. The production of SEUTs from flakes may have occurred as a result of two different technologies. First, flakes for SEUT manufacture may have been produced from large flake blanks produced from nodule cores (Figure 6- 1). The SEUTs that are manufactured via this trajectory will have remnant right-angle platforms (if present) that are either natural, single-facet, or multi-faceted. SEUTs may also be manufactured from flakes produced from bifacial block core reduction (Figure 6- 2). The SEUTs that are manufactured via this trajectory will have remnant platforms (if present) that are bifacial and more acute than those produced from nodule core flake blank production. Once a flake has been selected, the process for manufacturing an SEUT from a nodule core flake and a bifacial block core flake is identical. The ventral surface of the flake is used as the striking platform to remove flakes from the circumference of the tool to produce the SEUT acute cutting edge. When the tool is finished, the ventral surface of the flake becomes the flat or plano surface of the SEUT. Exhausted nodule cores may also be laterally cycled for use as SEUTs (Figure 6-3). During the process of production of flake blanks the nodule core becomes exhausted. As the size of the core decreases and manufacturing errors occur, the exhausted core is then laterally cycled in the continuum. The core is still usable and is inverted and manufactured into an SEUT (see Figure 6-3). Debitage from this process results in a higher frequency of step and hinge terminal fractures. These negative step/hinge scars on the face of the SEUT giving the appearance of a poorly made flake core. The goal in SEUT production is not to produce usable flake blanks, but to produce an acceptable cutting edge while maintaining tool weight. The former nodule core becomes an SEUT and may often maintain flake scars from its former life as a core. SEUT Manufactured from Nodule Core Flake FIGURE 6-1 Gallegos & Associates SEUT Manufactured from Bifacial Block Core Flake FIGURE 6-2 Gallegos & Associates SEUT Manufactured from Exhausted Nodule Core FIGURE 6-3 Gallegos & Associates PJ. 6-08 6-12 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Finally, SEUTs are often produced from advantageously shaped pieces of raw material that lend themselves to SEUT manufacture (Figure 6-4). Nodules (from cobble- to boulder-sized) were selected for manufacture into SEUTs. The nodules may be split and approached in a similar manner. Nodules with relatively plano-convex forms or those created by splitting the core may be easily manufactured into an SEUT. The flat portion of the nodule is used as a striking platform and a series of flakes are removed from the circumference of the nodule. Debitage produced from the manufacture of SEUTs directly from nodules may result in debitage with a higher frequency of hinge or step fracture terminations. In addition, the debitage will have a higher frequency of dorsal surface cortex and natural platforms. The actual cutting edge of a SEUT was engineered for specific cutting activities. Edges were intentionally flaked into one of six potential cutting edge classes: Class 1, excurvate/irregular; Class 2, excurvate/regular; Class 3, straight/irregular; Class 4, straight/regular; Class 5, incurvate/irregular; and, Class 6, incurvate/regular (Figure 6-5). Irregular or serrated edges were produced for more coarse cutting to move mass, such as felling trees, while regular edges were created for removing less mass during even cutting, such as hewing a piece of wood. Excurvate edges were probably used on large wood and incurvate edges were employed on wood with a smaller diameter. The incurvate edge kept the cutting edge centered on the work area. Straight edges provided the wood worker with a flat surface. A single SEUT may possess more than one class of cutting edge. A total of 3 SEUTs were recovered from CA-SDI-14176 and 2 SEUTs from CA-SDI- 14235 (see Table 6-1). The interpretations presented in this section suggest that the cultural resource sites within the Otay Ranch project area wherein SEUTs are well represented may have been wood procurement and/or wood working sites. SEUT Manufactured from Cobble- to Boulder-Sized Nodules FIGURE 6-4 Gallegos & Associates SEUT Edge Forms FIGURE 6-5 Gallegos & Associates PJ. 6-08 6-15 February 2009 Revised July 2010 6.2 SUMMARY Testing for the Otay Ranch project produced an artifact assemblage from CA-SDI-12287 consisting of 2 debitage, 2 manos, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14176 consists of 3 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 12 debitage, 2 battered implements, 2 battered implement flakes, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14235 consists of 2 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 5 debitage, and 2 battered implements. The lithic samples recovered from sites CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235 produced a specialized lithic assemblage that suggests the inhabitants visited the sites for two specific reasons: wood working and plant processing. The kinds of tools and debitage recovered represent primarily SEUT/adze use/resharpening for wood working activities. The presence of milling tools, battered implements, and battered implement debitage supports processing of floral and/or faunal material and maintenance of milling implements. The artifact assemblage reflects the use of local lithic materials. The precontact sites within and/or adjacent to the Otay Ranch Village 8 West project area comprise 3 lithic scatters, 1 artifact scatters, 1 temporary camps, and 1 habitation site. The presence of SEUTs/adzes (wood working tools) offers a relative date of early to middle Holocene, which was a wetter, cooler climate that would have supported trees. Previous work at site CA-SDI-12809 (habitation site) identified primarily Late Period occupation (McGowan 1997). PJ. 6-08 7-1 February 2009 Revised July 2010 SECTION 7 SIGNIFICANCE, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION 7.1 INTRODUCTION A significance evaluation was conducted for cultural resource sites located within the Otay Ranch project area. Testing was conducted at previously recorded sites CA-SDI- 14176 and CA-SDI-14235 to determine site significance under the City of Chula Vista and CEQA guidelines. Site CA-SDI-14236 was not relocated and therefore was not tested. This sparse lithic scatter site may have been mismapped during the initial recording and is identified here as not significant. Site CA-SDI-12287 was previously tested and identified as not significant (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008), and additional surface artifacts were collected and analyzed during the current study. Isolates (isolate finds), by their very nature are identified as not significant and are not discussed in this section. Sites located within the offsite improvement area are discussed in Appendix G. Site CA- SDI-4789 was previously tested and recommended as not significant (Schaefer 1994a). Site CA-SDI-12809 is a major village site with human remains and has been previously tested and has been identified as a significant cultural resource (McDonald et al. 1993 and Caltrans 1994). However, testing in the portion of the site within the offsite improvement area demonstrated that no subsurface deposits are present there (Mcdonald et al. 1993) 7.2SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Determination of what is and what is not an important resource is not a straightforward task. As suggested by Moratto and Kelly (1976), the significance of archaeological resources should be assessed in several terms, including research value to the scientist, aesthetic/cultural value to the community at large, and value to the Native American PJ. 6-08 7-2 February 2009 Revised July 2010 community. The importance of an archaeological resource must be demonstrated. According to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the term “historical resources” shall include the following: (1)A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3)Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D)Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. PJ. 6-08 7-3 February 2009 Revised July 2010 (b)A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. (2)The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project: (A)Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or (B)Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or (C)Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. (3)Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. (4)A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (5)When a project will affect state-owned historical resources, as described in Public Resources Code Section 5024, and the lead agency is a state agency, PJ. 6-08 7-4 February 2009 Revised July 2010 the lead agency shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5024.5. Consultation should be coordinated in a timely fashion with the preparation of environmental documents. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines consists of an Environmental Checklist Form to be used by a Lead Agency in evaluating whether a project may have a potentially significant effect on the environment. The criteria to be considered with respect to cultural resources are the following: a)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b)Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c)Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Recognizing that cultural resources often contain information that archival research cannot answer, there exists the potential for each resource to provide important information relevant to several theoretical and regional research questions. As part of the test program, research questions concerning chronology, subsistence and paleoenvironmental reconstruction, settlement patterns, trade and travel, and lithic technology were addressed. Given the nature of the project, the research questions were addressed on the level of the cultural material recovered. Testing provided the necessary information to determine site size, depth, content, integrity, and potential to address important research questions. PJ. 6-08 7-5 February 2009 Revised July 2010 7.3SITE SUMMARIES The test program for sites CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI-14235 included collection of surface artifacts, excavation of STPs, and analysis of materials recovered. Testing was not conducted at CA-SDI-14236 because this sparse lithic scatter was not relocated during the current survey. Site CA-SDI-12287 was previously tested (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008), and additional artifacts were collected from the site surface during the current survey. Sites CA-SDI-4789 and CA-SDI-12809 in the offsite improvement area were both previously tested, and the results are summarized in Appendix G. ●CA-SDI-4789 This site was previously tested and identified as not significant ●CA-SDI-12287 Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-12287 includes 2 debitage, 2 manos, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Site activities included plant processing. ●CA-SDI-12809 This major habitation site was previously tested and identified as significant and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. As a result of testing by Mooney and Associates for SR 125 (McDonald 1993), areas of artifact concentration were identified within the larger site boundary. Those significant portions of CA-SDI-12809 are outside the offsite improvement area. ●CA-SDI-14176 Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14176 includes 3 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 12 debitage, 2 battered implements, 2 battered implement flakes, and 1 unidentified ground stone fragment. Site activities included wood working and plant processing. PJ. 6-08 7-6 February 2009 Revised July 2010 ●CA-SDI-14235 Cultural material recovered from CA-SDI-14235 includes 2 SEUTs, 1 SEUT flake, 5 debitage, and 2 battered implements. Site activities included wood working and plant processing. ●CA-SDI-14236 This site was not relocated and as such is identified as not significant. 7.4RESEARCH VALUE 7.4.1Site Integrity Current archaeological methods allow a great deal of information to be extracted from cultural resources, providing certain criteria are met. Generally speaking, cultural resource sites that are useful for addressing important research questions must retain a minimum amount of stratigraphic integrity and/or an assemblage that can be confidently assigned to a cultural group. If these criteria are not in place, cultural materials recovered within the course of an excavation cannot be differentiated by time period or by culture. This greatly diminishes the value of the resource as a record of the human story. Site integrity is low for all of the sites, except for the significant portion of CA-SDI- 12809 (outside the project APE), given past ranching and farming activities. 7.4.2Research Potential The test program conducted by Gallegos & Associates identified CA-SDI-14235 as an artifact scatter, and CA-SDI-14176 as a temporary camp. As both sites contain primarily surface artifacts that have been collected, have a low subsurface artifact count, and have been previously disturbed by ranching and agricultural activity, the cultural resources have poor research potential. PJ. 6-08 7-7 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Site CA-SDI-4789 in the offsite improvement area was previously tested (Appendix G). The site is located in a plowed agricultural field and few artifacts were recovered subsurface. The researchers concluded that the testing and analysis program had exhausted the site’s research potential (Schaefer 1994a). The extensive testing program conducted at site CA-SDI-12809 identified areas of artifacts concentration within the larger site boundary, identified the site as eligible for the NRHP, and listed this site on the CRHR (McDonald et al. 1993 and Caltrans 1994). Testing for that portion of CA-SDI-12809 within the offsite improvement area revealed an absence of subsurface deposits (McDonald et al. 1993 and Caltrans 1994). Therefore, the portion of site CA-SDI-12809 within the offiste improvement area lacks significant research potential 7.5SIGNIFICANCE AND ELIGIBILITY DISCUSSION Precontact Sites Sites CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, and CA-SDI-14235have poor site integrity and a low amount of artifacts to address important research questions. CA-SDI-14236 is a sparse lithic scatter that was not relocated during the current study and therefore is identified here as not significant. Given the results of the test program, additional work at these sites would not significantly contribute to the understanding of the sites or past use of the site locations or the site occupants. Given the poor site integrity, low subsurface artifact counts, absence of ecofactual materials, and site disturbance, sitesCA-SDI- 12287, CA-SDI-14176, CA-SDI-14235, and CA-SDI-14236are identified as not significant under City of Chula Vista and CEQA criteria, and are recommended ineligible for listing on the CRHR. In the offsite improvement area, CA-SDI-4789 has been previously tested, with a recommendation that the testing had exhausted the site’s research potential. The site is identified as not significant and ineligible for listing on the CRHR. Site CA-SDI-1280, PJ. 6-08 7-8 February 2009 Revised July 2010 was previously tested, has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, and is listed on the CRHR (McDonald et al. 1993 and Caltrans 1994) (see Appendix G). However, that portion of CA-SDI-12809 within the offsite improvement area was identified as not significant (McDonald et al. 1993 and Caltrans 1994). 7.6IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES As presently planned, sites CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, CA-SDI-14235, and CA- SDI-14236 will be directly impacted by the proposed development. In the offsite improvement area, CA-SDI-4789 and that portion of CA-SDI-12809 identified as not significant will be directly impacted (Table 7-1 and Figure 7-1). Isolates P-37-014531, P-37-014532, P-37-014533, P-37-015008, P-37-015145, OR-I-3, OR-I-4, OR-I-5, OR-I-6, and OR-I-7 are identified as not significant and no further work is recommended. As a result of the current study, sites CA-SDI-14176 and CA-SDI- 14235 are identified as not significant (see Table 7-1 and Figure 7-1). Previous testing of CA-SDI-12287 identified the site as not significant (Clowery-Moreno and Smith 2008). Because CA-SDI-14236 (lithic scatter) was not relocated, this site may have been destroyed have likely been destroyed or was mapped incorrectly and is also identified as not significant (see Table 7-1 and Figure 7-1). In the offsite improvement area, CA-SDI- 4789is identified as not significant on the basis of previous testing (Schaefer et al. 1994a). Site CA-SDI-12809 has been previously tested and identified as a significant resource (Caltrans 1994; McDonald et al. 1993). However, an extensive subsurface testing program within and beyond the off-site improvement area APE did not identify significant deposits within 0.2 miles of the APE. Potentially significant impacts could result within the significant portion of CA-SDI-12809 if construction activities inadvertently extended beyond the APE. No further work is recommended for CA-SDI-12287, CA-SDI-14176, CA-SDI-14235, CA-SDI-14236, CA-SDI-4789, and that portion of CA-SDI-12809 within the offsite improvement area/APE. However, the proposed project could result in significant PJ. 6-08 7-9 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Table 7-1 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Recommendations Site Type Evaluation of Resource ImpactsMitigation Recommendations/Comments Temporary CampNot SignificantYes In offsite improvement area; No further work; Monitor during construction Artifact ScatterNot SignificantYesNo further work; Monitor during construction Habitation SiteSignificant No In offsite improvement area; Site area within APE identified as not significant; Avoidance by fencing construction zone; Monitor during construction Temporary CampNot SignificantYesNo further work; Monitor during construction Lithic ScatterNot SignificantYesNo further work; Monitor during construction Lithic ScatterNot RelocatedYesNo further work; Monitor during construction PJ. 6-08 7-10 February 2009 Revised July 2010 FIGURE 7-1 CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES IN RELATIONSHIP TO SITE PLAN AND OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT AREA FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST (See Confidential Appendix) PJ. 6-08 7-11 February 2009 Revised July 2010 impacts to archaeological resources, which may be buried and/or present on the surface but could not be identified during the field survey due to vegetation cover. It is recommended that the following standard mitigation measures from the Program EIR for the Otay General Development Plan also be implemented for Otay Ranch Village 8 West project: “Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits, the applicant shall provide written confirmation and incorporate into grading plans, to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager /Development Services Director (or their designee), that a principal investigator (PI) as listed by the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR 61) has been retained in an oversight capacity to ensure that an archaeological monitor(s) will be present during all cutting of previously undisturbed soil. If these cutting activities occur in more than one location, multiple monitors shall be provided to monitor these areas, as determined necessary by the PI. “During the initial grading of previously undisturbed soils within Village Eight West SPA Plan area and associated off-site facilities, prehistoric and historic resources may be encountered. In the event that the monitor identifies a potentially significant site,the archaeological monitor shall secure the discovery site from further impacts by delineating the site with staking and flagging, and by diverting grading equipment away from the archaeological site. Following notification to the City, the archaeological monitor shall conduct investigations as necessary to determine if the discovery is significant under the criteria listed in CEQA and the environmental guidelines of the City. If the discovery is determined to be not significant, grading operations may resume and the archaeological monitor shall summarize the findings in a letter report to the City following the completion of mass grading activities. The letter report shall describe the results of the on-site archaeological monitoring, each archaeological site observed, the scope of testing conducted, results of laboratory analysis (if applicable), and conclusions. The letter report shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager /Development Services PJ. 6-08 7-12 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Director (or their designee) prior to release of grading bonds. Any artifacts recovered during the evaluation shall be curated at a curation facility approved by the City. “For those prehistoric/historic resources that are determined to be significant, alternate means of achieving mitigation shall be pursued. In general, these forms of mitigation include: 1) site avoidance by preservation of the site in a natural state in open space or in open space easements, 2) site avoidance by preservation through capping the site and placing landscaping on top of the fill, 3) data recovery through implementation of an excavation and analysis program, or 4) a combination of one or more of the above measures. Procedures for implementing the alternative forms of mitigation described herein are further detailed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted as part of the Otay Ranch General Development Program EIR, EIR 90-01. “For those sites that are found to be significant resources and for which avoidance and reservation is not feasible or appropriate, the Applicant shall prepare a Data Recovery Plan. The plan will, at a minimum, include the following: 1) a statement of why data recovery is appropriate as a mitigating measure, 2) a research plan that explicitly provides the research questions that can reasonably be expected to be addressed by excavation and analysis of the site, 3) a statement of the types and kinds of data that can reasonably be expected to exist at the site and how these data will be used to answer important research questions, 4) a step-by-step discussion of field and laboratory methods to be employed, and 5) provisions for curation and storage of the artifacts, notes, and photographs will be stated. In cases involving historic resources; however, archival research and historical documentation shall be used to augment field-testing programs. “Grading operations within the affected area may resume once the site has been fully evaluated and mitigated to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager / Development Services Director (or their designee). All significant artifacts collected during the implementation of the Data Recovery Plan shall be curated at a facility approved by the City. PJ. 6-08 7-13 February 2009 Revised July 2010 “Following the completion of mass grading operations, the Applicant shall prepare a plan that addresses the temporary onsite presentation and interpretation of the results of the archaeological studies for the proposed project. This could be accomplished through exhibition within a future community center, civic building and/or multi-purpose building. This exhibition will only be for temporary curation display of those materials being actively used for interpretation and display, and that permanent curation of artifacts and data will be at a regional repository that meets the standards of the State Historical Resource Commission’s Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections, dated May 7, 1993, when one is established. All significant artifacts collected during the implementation of the Data Recovery Plan shall be permanently curated at a facility approved by the City. “If human remains are discovered during grading or site preparation activities within Otay Ranch Village 8 West, the archaeological monitor shall secure the discovery site from any further disturbance. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD will assist the City in determining what course of action shall be taken to deal with the remains. Grading operations within the affected area may resume once the site has been fully evaluated and mitigated to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager /Development Services Director (or their designee). The Archaeological Monitor shall summarize the findings in a letter report to the City following the completion of mass grading activities.” In addition to the standard mitigation measures from the Program EIR for the Otay General Development Plan listed above, the following project specific mitigation measure is recommended: PJ. 6-08 7-14 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Prior to the issuance of any land development permits for the Village Eight West SPA Plan area and associated off-site facilities, including clearing, grubbing, and grading, the applicant shall install protective fencing (i.e., orange snow fence or similar) along the Area of Potential Effect (APE) in the area of CA-SDI-12809 as directed by a qualified archaeologist. A qualified archaeologist shall monitor the site throughout the construction of the off-site facilities (including clearing, grubbing, grading, and installation) to ensure that unanticipated finds are handled in an appropriate and professional manner and that required fencing remains intact and project related construction activities do not extend beyond the approved limits of work. PJ. 6-08 8-1 February 2009 Revised July 2010 SECTION 8 REFERENCES CITED Ahler, Stanley A. 1989Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Study the Forest Rather than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. Henry and G. Odell. Archeological Paper of the American Anthropological Association No. 1. Almstedt, Ruth F. 1974 Bibliography of the Diegueño Indians. Ballena Press, Ramona, California. Ambler, J. Richard 1985 Archaeological Investigations Near Rainbow City Navajo Mountain, Utah. Northern Arizona University Archaeological Report No. 576, v. II. Flagstaff. Baksh, Michael 1991Cultural Resource Survey for San Diego Water Authority Pipeline 4E11, San Diego County. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Banks, Thomas J. 1980An Archaeological Survey of the Otay Ranch Proposed Barrow Pit Locations, San Diego County. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Barrows, David Prescott 1900 Ethnobotany of the Cahuilla Indians of Southern California: pp. 8, 10, 14. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bartlett, Katherine 1933 Pueblo Milling Stones of the Flagstaff Region and Their Relation to Others in the Southwest: A Study in Progressive Efficiency. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 3. Bean, Lowell J. 1972 Mukat’s People. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Bean, Lowell J. and Katherine Siva Saubel 1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California. PJ. 6-08 8-2 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Bean, Lowell J. and Florence C. Shipek 1978Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bedwell, Stephen F. 1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fork Rock Lake Area of South Central Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Berryman, Stanley and Judy A. Berryman 1987Archaeological Overview and Planning Document for the Proposed Rancho Otay Project. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Binford, Lewis R. 1980Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45 (1): 4-20. Bracket, Robert W. 1951 The History of San Diego County Ranchos. Union Title Insurance Co., San Diego. Brian F. Smith & Associates (BFSA) 1996aSite Record Form for CA-SDI-14176. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1996bSite Record Form for CA-SDI-14196. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1996cSite Record Form for CA-SDI-14208. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1996dSite Record Form for CA-SDI-14209. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1996eSite Record Form for CA-SDI-14235. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1996fSite Record Form for CA-SDI-14236. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1996gSite Record Form for P-37-014531. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. PJ. 6-08 8-3 February 2009 Revised July 2010 1996hSite Record Form for P-37-014532. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1996iSite Record Form for P-37-014533. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1996jSite Record Form for P-37-014554. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Bull, Charles and Russell Kaldenberg 1976Archaeological Investigations at the World Medical Foundation. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Burrus, Ernest J. (editor) 1967Diario del Capitan Comandante Fernando de Rivera y Moncada con un Apendice Documental. Edicion Prologo (Español y Ingles) y notas por E. J. Burrus. Ediciones Jose Porrua Turanzas, Madrid: Colección Chimalistac de Libros y Documentos Acerca de la Nueva Español, Vol. 24-25. Buysse, Johnna L. and Brian F. Smith 1999aAn Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Otay Ranch Village 11 Project. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 1999bAn Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 2000A Report of an Archaeological Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 2001Archaeological Mitigation of Impact to Prehistoric Site SDI-13864, Otay Ranch Village One West. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Byrd, Brian F. and Seetha N. Reddy 2002Late Holocene Adaptations along the Northern San Diego Coast: New Perspectives on Old Paradigms. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J. M. Erlandson and T. L. Jones, pp. 41-62. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. PJ. 6-08 8-4 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Cagel, Virginia 1991 Personal Communication to Susan D. Walter. Caltrans 1994125-South Historic Property Survey Report. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 1995First Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report – State Route 125 South. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 1998Second Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report: Final Preferred Alternative State Route 125 South. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Carrico, Richard L., Theodore G. Cooley, and Andrew Pigniolo 1993Final Cultural Resources Evaluation of the 23,088 Acre Otay Ranch, San Diego County. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Carter, George F. 1957 Pleistocene Man at San Diego. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore. City of San Diego 1981Draft EIR, Brown Field Master Plans & Comprehensive Land Use Plan, City of San Diego. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Clevenger, Joyce M. 1982 The Split Cobble Reduction Technology on San Nicolas Island, California. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach. Clowery-Moreno, Sara and Brian F. Smith 2008An Archaeological Study for the Village 8 Project. On file, Brian F. Smith & Associates, San Diego, California. Cook, John R. and Catherine A. Wright 2005Archaeological Monitoring for the Otay Ranch Village 7 Project, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. PJ. 6-08 8-5 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Cooley, Theodore G. 1982Analysis and Interpretation of CA-Lan-844: A Prehistoric Quarry Workshop and Factory in the Upper Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles County, California. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Los Angeles. Cooley, Theodore G., Kathleen A. Crawford, and Delman L. James 1996Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Brown Field Border Patrol Master Plan, Otay Mesa, San Diego, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Corum, Joyce 1989Third Supplemental Historical Property Survey Report 11-SD-94 P.M. 16.3 – R17.6. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Cuero, Delfina 1968 The Autobiography of Delfina Cuero, as told to Florence Shipek. Dawson’s Book Shop, Los Angeles, California. Cultural Resource Management Center (CRMC) San Diego State University 1985Final Report – Archaeological Test Excavations at CA-SDI-9980 and CA- SDI-9981 on the Proposed Otay Mesa State Prison Sewer Link, RT. 5. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Cultural Systems Research, Inc. (CSRI) 1983Volume I Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program of the Proposed Miguel-Tijuana 230 kV International Interconnection Project, San Diego County. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Davis, Emma Lou, Clark W. Brott, and David L. Weide 1969The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers 6. San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, California. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and Daniel Abeyta 1998Brown Field Airport Master Plan, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, Federal Aviation Administration. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Dodd, Walter A. 1976 Battered Implements from Armijo Rockshelter: An Investigation of Function. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales. PJ. 6-08 8-6 February 2009 Revised July 2010 1979The Wear and Use of Battered Tools at Armijo Rockshelter. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Brian Hayden, pp. 231-242. Academic Press, New York. Drucker, Phillip 1939Culture Element Distributions - V: Southern California. University of California Anthropological Records 1(1):5-47, Berkeley, California. Dubois, Constance Goddard 1908The Religion of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology (8):69-186, Berkeley, California. Eighmey, James 1997Significance Evaluation of CA-SDI-11211, CA-SDI-14246, CA-SDI- 14248, CA-SDI-11951, Otay Mesa, San Diego County. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company (ERCE) 1991Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the 22,873-Acre Otay Ranch. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Erlandson, J. M., D. J. Kennett, B. L. Ingram, D. A. Guthrie, D. P. Morris, M. A. Tveskov, G. J. West, and P. L. Walker 1996An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA- SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California. Radiocarbon 38: 355-373. Fink, Gary 1975Otay Landfill Expansion Archaeological Survey Project No. UJ0144. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 1978Reevaluation of the Lindenmeier Folsom: A Replication Experiment in Lithic Technology. American Antiquity 43:473-480. 1981Replicative Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the Hoko River Site. In Laboratory of Anthropology Reports of Investigation No. 59. Washington State University, Pullman. 1985Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M. G. Plew, J. C. Woods, and M. G. Pavesic, pp. 265-276. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. PJ. 6-08 8-7 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Flenniken, J. Jeffrey and James C. Haggarty 1979Trampling as an Agency in the Formation of Edge Damage: An Experiment in Lithic Technology. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 13(2):208-214. Flenniken, J. Jeffrey and Alan Stanfill 1980A Preliminary Technological Examination of 20 Archaeological Sites Located During the Cultural Resource Survey of the White Horse Ranch Public Land Exchange. Contract Abstracts and CRM Archeology 1(1):23- 30. Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, Jeffrey A. Markos, and Terry L. Ozbun 1993Battered Implements: Mano and Metate Resharpening Tools From CA- SDI-10148. In Lithic Analysts Research Report No. 33. Pullman, Washington. Gallegos, Dennis R. 1985Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. In Casual Papers of the Cultural Resource Management Center, Vol. 2, No. 1, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 1987A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, San Diego Archaeological Society, San Diego, California. 1991Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colten. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 2002Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J. M. Erlandson and T. L. Jones. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Gallegos, Dennis R. and J. Jeffrey Flenniken 2000Cultural Resource Test for a Portion of CA-SDI-8654 (Kuebler Ranch), Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Gallegos, Dennis R. and Carolyn Kyle 1988Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point, Prehistoric Site SDi-48 (W-164), San Diego, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. PJ. 6-08 8-8 February 2009 Revised July 2010 1992Archaeological Testing for a Portion of CA-SDI-5352 Located Within the Struthers Trust #3 Parcel, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 1997aCultural Resource Survey and Test Report for the South San Diego Pipeline No. 2 Project, City of San Diego, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 1997bCultural Resources Report for the Otay Annex Landfill Project. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Gallegos, Dennis R. and Andrew Pigniolo 1988Cultural Resource Inventory Number 2 for Twenty-Seven Drill Sites Within the Amir Indian Rose Area Lease. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Gallegos, Dennis R., J. Jeffrey Flenniken, Tracy Stropes, Monica Guerrero, and Brian Hatoff 2002Cultural Resource Monitoring and Data Recovery Program for CA-SDI- 7215, Otay Mesa Generating Project, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego, California. 2003Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for CA-SDI-9975, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego, California. Gayton, A. H. 1929Yokuts and Western Mono Pottery-Making. In American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(3):239-255. University of California, Berkeley. Geib, Phil 1986Grinding Implement Production near Rivera, Arizona: Archaeological Investigations at the Rivera Substation. In Northern Arizona University Archaeological Report No. 760. Flagstaff. Gifford, Edward W. 1918Clans and Moieties in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 14:167-174, Berkeley, California. Goddard, Susan and Del James 1991Site Record Form for CA-SDI-12286. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. PJ. 6-08 8-9 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Gross, Timothy, Ruth Alter, and Mary Robbins-Wade 1996Archaeological Survey for the Joint Task Force-Six Border Road Repair Project, Otay Mountain, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Hargrove, James 1985Reviewers of the Otay Mesa Prison Sewer Pipeline Negative Declaration. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Harrington, J. P. 1978 Chinigchinich. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California. Hayden, Brian 1979 Palaeolithic Reflections: Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavations Among Australian Aborigines. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Hayden, Brian and Margaret Nelson 1981The Use of Chipped Lithic Material in the Contemporary Maya Highlands. American Antiquity 46:885-898. Hector, Susan 1986Archaeologial Survey of SDG&E Gas Line on Otay Mesa. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Hector, Susan and Sherri Andrews 2004Cultural Resources Evaluation for CA-SDI-12279 and CA-SDI-12565, Chula Vista Village 7 Project, Chula Vista, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Hedges, Ken and Christina Beresford 1986Santa Ysabel Ethnobotany. San Diego Museum of Man, Ethnic Technology Notes (20)58. Heizer, Robert F. and A. F. Almquist 1971 The Other Californians: Prejudice and Discrimination under Spain, Mexico and the United States to 1920. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Heizer, Robert F. and M. A. Whipple 1957 The California Indians. University of California Press, Berkeley. PJ. 6-08 8-10 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Hill, Willard Williams 1982 An Ethnography of Santa Clara Pueblo New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque. Hooper, Lucille 1920The Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 16:315-380, Berkeley, California. Hough, W. 1897Stone-Working at Tewa. American Anthropologist 10:191. Hunt, Cheryl 2004Site Record Form Update for CA-SDI-12809. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Johnson, John R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Henry O. Ajie, and Don P. Morris 2000Arlington Springs Revisited. In Proceedings of the 5th California Islands Symposium, edited by D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney, pp. 541- 545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Kaldenberg, Russell L. 1982Rancho Park North, A San Dieguito-La Jolla Shellfish Processing Site on Coastal Southern California. In Occasional Paper No. 6. Imperial College Museum Society, El Centro, California. Kennedy, Michael P. and Siang S. Tan 1977 Geology of National City, Imperial Beach, and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Conservation. Keneally, Finbar (O.F.M.) 1965 The Writings of Fermin Francisco de Lasuen. Academy of American Franciscan History, Washington, D.C. Kowta, Makoto 1969The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. In University of California Publications in Anthropology 6. Berkeley and Los Angles, California. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California(first edition). In Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. PJ. 6-08 8-11 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Kyle, Carolyn E. and Dennis R. Gallegos 1993Data Recovery Program for a Portion of Prehistoric Site CA-SDI-10148, East Mission Gorge Pump Station and Force Main, San Diego, California. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Kyle, Carolyn E., Adella B. Schroth, and Dennis R. Gallegos 1998Remington Hills Archaeological Data Recovery Program for Prehistoric Site CA-SDI-11079, Otay Mesa, San Diego, California. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Langdon, Margaret 1970 A Grammar of Diegueño, The Mesa Grande Dialect. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Lange, Charles H. 1959 Cochiti: A New Mexico Pueblo, Past and Present. University of Texas Press. Austin. Los Angeles Times 1984 Issue cited in text. Luomala, Katherine 1978Tipai and Ipai. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 592-609. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Masters, Patricia M. 1988Report on Paleo-Environment Reconstruction of San Diego Bay, 10,000 Years B.P. to Present. In Five Thousand Years of Marine Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48, by D. R. Gallegos and C. E. Kyle. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Masters, Patricia M. and Dennis R. Gallegos 1997Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County During the Middle Holocene. In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene. Edited by J. M. Erlandson and M. A. Glassow, pp. 11-22. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. PJ. 6-08 8-12 February 2009 Revised July 2010 McCorkle-Apple, Rebecca and Christopher L. Shaver 2006Archaeological Survey Report for State Route 125-South Project: Biological Mitigation Properties (Otay Ranch – San Ysidro and Otay River Valley), San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. McDonald, Meg and Robert Case 1994Phase II Evaluation of CA-SDI-11952, A Prehistoric Site in the Otay River Valley, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. McDonald, Meg and James D. Eighmey 1997Significance Evaluation of CA-SDI-11211, CA-SDI-14246, and CA-SDI- 11951, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. McDonald, Meg, Carol Serr, and Jerry Schaefer 1993Phase II Evaluation of CA-SDI-12809, A Late Prehistoric Habitation Site in the Otay River Valley, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. McGowan, Charolotte 1997Volume I Final Report of the Excavation of CSUSD CAL F:5:1. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Merrill, Ruth Earl 1973Plants Used in Basketry by California Indians. University of California Publications in Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 20. Reprinted by Ballena Press, Ramona, California. Michelsen, Ralph C. 1967Pecked Metates of Baja California. The Masterkey 41:73-77. Miller, Jacqueline 1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. M.A. thesis, University of California, San Diego, California. Mooney, Brian 1992Evaluation of a Prehistoric Resource Processing Site CA-SDI-10452 Historic Bird Ranch CA-SDI-11386H and Water Conveyance System CA- SDI-11383H for the Otay Valley Water Reclamation Plant. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. PJ. 6-08 8-13 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Moratto, Michael J. and Roger Kelly 1976Optimizing Strategies for Evaluating Archaeological Significance. In: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, Vol. 1, pp. 1-30. Academic Press. Moriarty, James R. III 1967Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego County. Science 155 (3762):553-555. National City Star News 1984 Issue cited in text. Office of Historic Preservation 1995State 125-South Construction Project, Lemon Grove, San Diego County. Correspondence addressed to Fred J. Hempel, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento dated May 25, 1995. On file at Caltrans District 11 Office, San Diego. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. 1992Draft Environmental Impact Report, Otay Ranch. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. and Gallegos & Associates 1993East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Cultural Resource Technical Report GPA 94-02, Log No. 93-19-6. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Pallette, Drew and Carol Serr 1994Phase II Testing of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites CA-SDI-11157, - 11158, and -12466 Poggi Canyon San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Pierson, Larry J. 2003Archaeological Monitoring for Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor Phase IV Project. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Pierson, Larry, J. and Jeffrey K. Henry 2007Archaeological Monitoring for the State Route 125 South Connector Project. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. PJ. 6-08 8-14 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Pigniolo, Andrew R. 1992Distribution of Piedra de Lumbra “Chert” and Hunter/Gatherer Mobility and Exchange in Southern California. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Polk, Michael R. 1972 Manufacture and Uses of Steatite Objects by the Diegueño. In Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 8(3):1–26. Pourade, Richard F. 1960 The History of San Diego: The Explorers: Chapter 1. Union-Tribune Publishing Co., San Diego, California. 1963 The Silver Dons. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 1969 Historic Ranchos of San Diego County. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. Priestly, Herbert I. (Ed.) 1937 A Historical, Political and Natural Description of California in 1775 by Pedro Fages, Soldier of Spain. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Rader, Bert and Del James 1991aSite Record Form for CA-SDI-12287. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1991bSite Record Form for P-37-015141. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1991cSite Record Form for P-37-015142. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Rader, Bert and Patricia Mitchell 1991aSite Record Form for P-37-015143. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1991bSite Record Form for P-37-015145. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Rick, Torben C., Jon M. Erlandson, and Rene L. Vellanoweth 2001Paleocoastal Marine Fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Perspectives from Daisy Cave, California. American Antiquity 66 (4): 595-614. PJ. 6-08 8-15 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Ritz, Frank, Davis McMillan, Russell O. Collet, William R. Manley, and Susan Hector 1989Otay Ranch Archaeological Survey: San Ysidro Mountains Parcel, Proctor Valley, Parcel, Otay River Parcel. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Robbins-Wade, Mary, A. Giletti, M. Murray and M. Sivba 2004Site Record Form for CA-SDI-17103. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Robinson, Alfred 1969 Life in California During a Residence of Several Years in that Territory. Da Capo Press, New York. Rogers, Malcolm 1929The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. American Anthropologist 31(3). 1939Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado and Adjacent Desert Regions. In San Diego Museum Papers, No. 3, May. 1945An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1(1). 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California. Rosen, Martin D. 1989Site Record Form for CA-SDI-12809. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1990Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed State Route 125 from State Route 905 (Near Second Border Crossing) to State Route 54 (Near Sweetwater Reservoir), San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 2006Historic Property Survey Report for State Route 125-South Project Trails, Utilities, Campground Improvements, and Other Project Betterments, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Rudkin, Charles (Transl. and Ed.) 1956 Observations on California 1772-1790 by Father Luis Sales O.P. Dawson’s Book Shop, Los Angeles, California. PJ. 6-08 8-16 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Rush, Philip 1965 Some Old Ranchos and Adobes. Nynesch Press, San Diego. San Diego Evening Tribune 1938- Various issues cited in text. 1988 San Diego Historical Society (SDHS) n.d.“Otay Ranchos.” On file in the vertical files at San Diego Historical Society Research Archives. San Diego Union 1968 Issue cited in text. Scarbery, June M. 1991 Personal communication to Susan D. Walter. Schaefer, Jerry, Daniel M. Saunders, and Carol Serr 1994aPhase II Archaeological Evaluation of Prehistoric Sites CA-SDI-4739, CA-SDI-4741/4742, CA-SDI-4743, CA-SDI-4789/4988, CA-SDI- 11367/11368, and CA-SDI-11372 in the Otay River Area, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Schaefer, Jerry, Stephen Van Wormer, and Susan Walter 1994bHistoric Study Report of Sites CA-SDI-11374H, 11383H, 12272H, 12273H for State Route 125 on Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Schroth, Adella B. and J. Jeffrey Flenniken 1997aIntrasite Lithic Studies. In Route 905 Cultural Resource Test Report for Sites CA-SDI-6941, Loci G and Y; CA-SDI-11423; and CA-SD-11424, by Carolyn E. Kyle, Adella B. Schroth, and Dennis R. Gallegos. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 1997bCA-SDI-11424 Lithic Assemblage. In Route 905 Cultural Resource Test Report for Sites CA-SDI-6941, Loci G and Y; CA-SDI-11423; and, CA- SDI-11424, by Carolyn E. Kyle, Adella B. Schroth, and Dennis R. Gallegos. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. PJ. 6-08 8-17 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Scott, S. 1985An Analysis of Archaeological Materials Recovered During Test Excavations of Six Prehistoric Sites on the Deschutes National Forest in Central Oregon. In Deschutes National Forest Cultural Resources Report No. 2. 1990Flake Size: What Does It Mean? Paper presented at the Forty-Third Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, Spokane, Washington. 1991Problems with the Use of Flake Size in Inferring Stages of Lithic Reduction. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13(2):172-179. Serr, Carol 1990Site Record Form for P-37-015008. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Shipek, Florence C. 1977 A Strategy for Change: The Luiseño of Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 1978History of Southern California Mission Indians. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1980Prepared Direct Testimony: Part One: Value of Aboriginal Water Rights of the San Luis Rey River Reservations, 1851. Part Two: History of Agriculture and Irrigation for the La Jolla, Pala, Pauma, Rincon and San Pasqual Indians of Southern California. Submitted to the U. S. Court of Claims for San Luis Rey River Reservation Water Case, Docket 80A-1. 1986aThe Antiquity of the Kumeyaay: Myth and Geologic Reality. In Occasional Papers on Linguistics, No. 13. Papers from the 1983, 1984 and 1985 Hokan-Penutian Language Conferences. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. 1986bThe Impact of Europeans Upon the Kumeyaay. In The Impact of European Exploration and Settlement of Local Native Americans. Cabrillo Historical Association. Reprinted in 1992. 1987Saints or Oppressors, Franciscan Missionaries of California: Teachers of Agriculture or Exploiters. In The Missions of California, edited by R. Costo and J. H. Costo. American Indian Historical Society, San Francisco, California. PJ. 6-08 8-18 February 2009 Revised July 2010 1988 Pushed into the Rocks: Southern California Indian Land Tenure 1769- 1986. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 1989aMission Indians and Indians of California Claims Cases. American Indian Quarterly 13(4):409-420. 1989bAn Example of Intensive Plant Husbandry: The Kumeyaay of Southern California. In Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation, edited by D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman. Unwin-Hyman, London. 1991 Delfina Cuero: Her Autobiography: An Account of the Rest of Her Life and Her Ethnobotanic Contributions. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California. 1993Kumeyaay Plant Husbandry: Fire, Water and Erosion Control Techniques. In Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California. Simpson, Ruth Deete 1952The Hopi Indians-8. The Masterkey 26:179-191. Smith, Brian F. 1989aResults of an Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources within the Baldwin/Otay Ranch Business Park. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1989bAn Archaeological Survey of the Otay Ranch/Nelson and Sloan Quarry Extension. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1995Results of an Archaeological Survey and the Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One and Annexation Project. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1996Results of an Archaeological Survey at the Otay Valley Parcel of the Otay Ranch. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 2003Archaeological Investigations and Cultural Resource Evaluations for the Otay Ranch Company’s Property Within Village 3 of Otay Ranch. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. PJ. 6-08 8-19 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Smith, Brian F. and Sara Clowery-Moreno 2006An Archaeological Assessment for the High Tech High Chula Vista Project. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Smith, Brian F. and James Moriarty 1984An Archaeological Survey of the Robinhood Ridge Precise Plan and the Evaluation of Sites SDM-W-3513 and SDM-W-3514, Otay Mesa, City of San Diego, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Smith, Brian F. and Larry J. Pierson 1999A Cultural Resources Study for the Olympic Parkway Project. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Smith, Brian F. and Seth A. Rosenberg 2007An Archaeological Study for the Chula Vista International Raceway Project. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Southern California Rancher 1944 Issues cited in text. Sparkman, Philip S. 1908The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 20(16):292-358, Berkeley, California. Spicer, Edward H. 1962 Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain and Mexico and the United States on the Indians of the Southwest, 1533-1960. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Spier, Leslie 1923Southern Diegueño Customs. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 20(16). Spier, Robert F. G. 1978Foothill Yokuts. In Handbook of the North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 471-484. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Strong, William D. 1929Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1):1-350. PJ. 6-08 8-20 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Sullivan, Alan P. and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755-779. Thesken, Jay and Richard L. Carrico 1982Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Otay Mesa Correctional Facility. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Tibesar, Antonine 1955 Writings of Junipero Serra (Vols. 1-4). Academy of American Franciscan History, Washington, D.C. Tierra Environmental Services and Jackson Underwood 2002Draft Environmental Resources Survey for Otay Ranch Freeway Commercial Project. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. True, Delbert L. 1958An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity. 23(3):225-63. 1970Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. In University of California Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Monographs 1. 1980The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County. The Journal of New World Archaeology 3:1-39. True, Delbert L. and Georgia Waugh 1982Proposed Settlement Shifts during San Luis Rey Times: Northern San Diego County, California. In: Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(1):34-54. True, Delbert L., Clement W. Meighan, and Harvey Crew 1974Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tuma, Michael 2002Archaeological Mitigation and Monitoring Study for Otay Ranch Village 6, McMillin Property, City of Chula Vista, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. PJ. 6-08 8-21 February 2009 Revised July 2010 2003Archaeological Mitigation and Monitoring Study for Otay Ranch Village 6, Otay Ranch Company Property, City of Chula Vista, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Underhill, Ruth 1941Indians of Southern California. In Bureau of Indian Affairs: Sherman Pamphlets, No. 2. Underwood, Jackson 2000Archaeological Testing of CA-SDI-14252 and 14731 Naval Space Command, Space Surveillance Field Station Brown Field, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service 1973 Soil Survey: San Diego Area, California. University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, December, 1973. United States Department of the Interior (USDI) n.d.Brown Field Airport National WWII Historical District Buildings Evaluation Table, U.S. Department of the Interior. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Wallace, William J. 1954The Little Sycamore Site and the Early Milling Stone Culture of Southern California. American Antiquity 20:112-123. 1978Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 9000-2000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by R. Heizer. pp.25-36. Washington, D.C. Warren, Claude N. 1964Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1967The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 168-185. 1968Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. I. Williams. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-14. PJ. 6-08 8-22 February 2009 Revised July 2010 Warren, Claude N. and Max G. Pavesic 1963Appendix I: Shell Midden Analysis of the Site SDi-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development on Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Warren, Claude N., Delbert L. True, and Ardith A. Eudey 1961Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County, California: Results and Interpretation of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961. University of California Press, Los Angeles. Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer 1998 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Periods. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study (screen check draft). On file, ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California. Waters, M. and G. Berg 1973aSite Record Form for CA-SDI-4726. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1973bSite Record Form for CA-SDI-4731. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. Waugh, M. Georgie 1986 Intensification and Land-Use: Archaeological Indication of Transition and Transformation in a Late Prehistoric Complex in Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. WESTEC 1979Proponent’s Environmental Assessment Miguel to Tijuana Interconnection Project 230 kV Transmission Line. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1982California State Prison at San Diego Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 61010704. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. 1987East Mesa County Detention Facility Draft Environmental Impact Report. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. PJ. 6-08 8-23 February 2009 Revised July 2010 1988East Mesa Detention Facility Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. WESTEC and EDAW, Inc. 1986Otay Mesa OHV Park Environmental Impact Report. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California. White, Raymond C. 1963Luiseño Social Organizations. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 48(2):1-194, Berkeley, California. Willig, Judith A., C. Melvin Aikens, and John L. Fagan 1988Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis- Archaic Interface. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers, No. 21. Carson City, Nevada. Wolcott, Marjorie T. 1929 Pioneer Notes from the Diaries of Judge Benjamin Hayes. Los Angeles, California. Woodward, Arthur 1934Notes on the Indians of San Diego County from the Manuscripts of Judge Benjamin Hayes. The Masterkey 8(5):140-150. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles, California. APPENDIX A RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL DDeennnniiss RR..GGaalllleeggooss GGaalllleeggooss &&AAssssoocciiaatteess PPrriinncciippaall GENERAL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS Mr. Gallegos has served as Project Manager/Principal Investigator for cultural resource studies within southern California for federal, state and local compliance. These projects include constraint level evaluations, surveys, CEQA testing programs, evaluations for National Register status, Section 106 compliance, and data recovery programs. Mr. Gallegos is knowledgeable of federal legal requirements, as well as City, County and CEQA requirements, having worked on over 500 projects within the past 30 years. These projects include: surveys and test programs for MWD Pipelines 4, 5, and 6; Oceanside-Escondido Rail Line; SR 905 and the widening of Otay Mesa Road; Camp Pendleton Santa Margarita River Valley Inventory (5,000 acres); NAS Miramar inventory (sample inventory of 20,000 acres); Naval Radio Receiving Facility inventory; Cleveland National Forest report preparation; and, testing of 9,000 to 1,000 year-old sites within San Diego County, as well as historic projects, such as data recovery programs for the Aguirre Adobe and the McCool/Lohman Homestead projects. Mr. Gallegos’ experience in major cultural resource overviews includes: the Otay Mesa Management Plan for 30,000 acres on the U.S./Mexico border, BLM Kuchamaa Inventory (30,000 acres SE San Diego County); San Dieguito River Valley Park overview of 80,000 acres; and, overviews for the cities of Escondido, San Marcos, Encinitas, and for the San Diego, Otay, and San Luis Rey River valleys. Additional projects managed by Mr. Gallegos include: an inventory for Anza-Borrego Desert State Park; Oceanside-Escondido Bike Trail and Rail Line; Viejas Village inventory and test; survey and testing for Carlsbad Ranch; constraint level study for Carrillo Ranch Specific Plan; Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project; and, inventories for Subarea III (3,000acres), Subarea IV (1,500 acres), and Subarea V (2,000 acres) for the City of San Diego. Data Recovery programs include: Windsong Shores, PacBell, Twin Oaks Valley Ranch, Batiquitos Ridge, Rogers Ridge, Torrey Ranch, Calpine Otay Mesa Generating Plant Sites, Kuebler Ranch, and Legoland. EMPLOYMENT Principal, Gallegos & Associates, 1990 to Present Ogden/ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company, 1978 to 1990 Archaeological Consultant, 1977 to 1978 Bureau of Land Management, 1975 to 1977 State of California, 1970 -1975 EDUCATION & REGISTRATIONS B.A, Anthropology, California State University, Northridge, 1974 B.S., Business, California State University, Northridge, 1973 AFFILIATIONS San Diego Archaeological Center, Board Member 2001 to 2007 San Diego County Archaeological Society, Vice President 2004 San Diego Presidio Peer Review and Oversight Committee, 2000-2002 Carlsbad Historic Preservation Commission, 1989-1993 Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology PUBLICATIONS Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego County, California. In: Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Erlandson and Jones, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 2003. Management Plan for Otay Mesa Prehistoric Resources, San Diego, California. Authors: D. Gallegos, A. Schroth, and C. Kyle. Coyote Press, Salinas, California, Agency Reports, 1998. Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDi-48 (W-164), San Diego, California. (with Carolyn Kyle). Coyote Press, Salinas, California, No. 40, 1998. DDeennnniiss RR..GGaalllleeggooss GGaalllleeggooss &&AAssssoocciiaatteess PPrriinncciippaall Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County (with Patricia Masters, Ph.D.). In: Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, University of California, Los Angeles, California, Vol. 4, 1997. A Review and Synthesis of the Archaeological Record for the Lower San Diego River Valley. Society for California Archaeology, San Diego, California, Volume 8, 1995. Patterns and Implications of Coastal Settlement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300Years Ago. In: Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, No. 10, 1992. Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In: Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1991. A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In: San Dieguito - La Jolla, Chronology and Controversy, San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper, Number 1, 1987. Relocation of the Ballast Point Tryworks Oven Foundation (with Adella Schroth). In Fort Guijarros Quarterly,3:2,1989. Early Man and a Cultural Chronology for Batiquitos Lagoon. In: Casual Papers, Cultural Resource Management Center, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1986. Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. In: Casual Papers, Cultural Resource Management Center, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1985. Class II Cultural Resource Inventory, East Mesa and West Mesa Region, Imperial Valley, California, (with others). USDI, BLM, 1980. Cultural Resource Inventory of the Central Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions, (with others). USDI, BLM, Cultural Resources Publications, Archaeology, 1980. AWARDS Excellence in Archaeology Award for the Management Plan for Otay Mesa Cultural Resources, (Education), San Diego Archaeological Center (SDAC), 2007 Excellence in Archaeology Awards (Honorable Mention) for Torrey Ranch Site Data Recovery and Monitoring Program (Scientific Research); and for the Naval Training Center (Cultural Heritage), San Diego Archaeological Center, 2007 Award of Excellence for Historic Preservation, City of San Diego Historical Resources Board, 2004 Certificate of Merit, Association of Environmental Planners, 2002 Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Historic Preservation, Leo Carrillo Ranch Master Plan, California Preservation Foundation, 1998 Special Achievement Award, Bureau of Land Management, CaliforniaDesert Planning Staff, 1977 MMoonniiccaa GGuueerrrreerroo GGaalllleeggooss &&AAssssoocciiaatteess PPrroojjeecctt AArrcchhaaeeoollooggiisstt GENERAL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS Ms. Monica Guerrero’s experience in the field of Archaeology includes literature reviews, record searches, project management, direction of field crews for survey and testing programs, ceramic analysis, design of surface collection maps, graphics, GPS/GIS mapping, and contributing author for various San Diego County reports. Her recent projects include the survey report for the SDG&E Firestorm project, the test/evaluation report for the Lilac Ranch project, Merriam Mountains project and the NCTD Oceanside-Escondido Rail project; inventory, testing, data recovery, and monitoring programs for the Calpine Otay Mesa Generating Plant project; Carlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plan Inventory, BLM Kuchamaa Overview study; and, Otay Mesa Trunk Sewer Inventory. Her laboratory experience includes artifact identification, sorting, cataloging of artifacts, and ceramic analyses. As a teaching assistant at San Diego State University, her duties included instruction of field techniques, laboratory analysis, and lower division cultural and physical anthropology courses. She has also served as a collections manager developing skills that included revitalization of artifact collections, identification and re-cataloging of artifacts, entering data into a Collections Management database, and providing public-based educational programs to local elementary school students. She has assisted with an archaeological field class in Mocollope, Peru, where she provided student field instruction and supervision of field excavation and laboratory analysis. Her work at the Central Coast Information Center included documentation of all maps, site forms, and reports, and data entry for both archaeological and historical resources. PROJECT RESUME AND SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE Contributing Author 2008Cultural Resource Survey for the Firestorm 2007 SDG&E Regional Permit 63 Emergency Activities Project, County of San Diego, California. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008Cultural Resource Survey for the VCMWD South Village Water Reclamation Project, Valley Center, California. Prepared for the Valley Center Municipal Water District. 2007Cultural Resource Survey and Boundary Test Report for the Lilac Ranch Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Sage Community Group, Inc. 2007Cultural Resource Report for the Merriam Mountains Project, County of San Diego, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates. 2004 Cultural Resource Survey for the Carlsbad Desalination Plant Project, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates. 2003City of Carlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plans – Cultural Resources Background Study, City of Carlsbad. Prepared for Dudek & Associates. 2003Cultural Resource Inventory for the Otay Mesa Trunk Sewer Project, San Diego, California. Prepared for PBS&J. 2002 Otay/Kuchamaa Cultural Resource Background Study, San Diego County, California. Prepared as Part of the Otay/Kuchamaa Resource Management Plan. Prepared for USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001Cultural Resource Test Report for the Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project, Oceanside, California. Prepared for Dudek & Associates. 2001 Data Recovery Program for Pacbell Site CA-SDI-5633, San Marcos, California. Prepared for Joseph Wong Design Associates. EMPLOYMENT Gallegos & Associates, 2000 to Present San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1998-2001 University of California, Los Angeles, 1999 University of California, Santa Barbara 1994-1996 EDUCATION & AFFILIATIONS 2001M.A. Anthropology, San Diego State University 2001 Register of Professional Archaeologists 1996B.A. Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara Society for California Archaeology Society for American Archaeology PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS 2003 New Perspectives on San Diego County Ceramics. Presented to the Annual Southern Data-Sharing Meeting Society, for California Archaeology, San Diego, California. 2001 Hual-Cu-Cuish: A Late Prehistoric Kumeyaay Village Site in the Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Master’s Thesis on file at San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 2001 Archaeological Investigations at CA-SDI-945, San Diego County, California. In: Society for California Archaeology, Volume 14, 2001. 2000 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at Hual-Cu-Cuish (CA-SDI-945), San Diego County, California. Presented at the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting, Society for California Archaeology, Riverside, California. AAAnnnnnnaaa CCC...NNNoooaaahhh,,,PPPhhh...DDD... AAArrrccchhhaaaeeeooolllooogggiiisssttt GENERAL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS Dr. Noah’s thirty years experience as an archaeologist in southern California includes field studies in coastal, mountain, and desert regions of southern California and on both the northern and southern California Channel Islands. She has conducted over one hundred archaeological studies for federal, state, and local compliance. These projects include alignment surveys for State Highway 52 from Tierra Santa to Santee, survey and mapping of sites at Drinkwater Lake, Fort Irwin, and prehistoric site excavations at Palomar Airport, Jacumba Airport, San Elijo Lagoon County Park, and Jacumba Park, and in numerous road and public utility corridors. In addition to extensive involvement in prehistoric archaeology, Dr. Noah served as principal investigator for historic period excavations at the mid-nineteenth century Guajome Ranch House, and has performed National Register evaluations of numerous historic buildings and structures. Dr. Noah’s work for the County of San Diego resulted in the State Office of Historic Preservation agreement to enter into the first Memorandum of Understanding with a local agency to delegate State responsibilities for HUD-related historic site evaluation to a local authority. As coordinator of a 5 to 14-member environmental unit, Dr. Noah served as project manager for the County of San Diego’s largest and most complex archaeological and environmental studies. In addition to Dr. Noah’s extensive work in California, she has also performed field studies and conducted zooarchaeological studies at sites in Arizona, Mexico’s Baja California Sur, Peru, British Columbia, and Iceland. EMPLOYMENT Principal, Noah Archaeological Consulting, 2008 to present Project Archaeologist, Gallegos & Associates, 2005 to 2008 Teaching Associate, UCLA Department of Anthropology, 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside, 1997 Environmental Management Coordinator/Archaeologist, County of San Diego Department of Public Works, 1988-1997 County Archaeologist, County of San Diego Department of Public Works, 1981-1988 Environmental Management Specialist/Archaeologist, County of San Diego Planning Department Zooarchaeological Consultant 1992-present Archaeological Consultant 1978-present EDUCATION AND REGISTRATIONS Ph.D., Anthropology, UCLA, 2005 M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1987 B.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1979 Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) AFFILIATIONS UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Research Associate, 2005 to 2010 San Diego County Archaeological Society, President Elect/President, 1996-1998 State of California Preservation Task Force, Archaeology Subcommittee, Governor-appointed member, 1995 International Council for Archaeozoology Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS A Cross-Cultural Study of Subsistence Practices and Food Choice Among Indigenous Communities Following European Contact (with A. Graesch and J. Bernard). In Across a Great Divide, Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies, 1400-1900, edited by L. Scheiber and M. Wagner, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 2010. Dogs, Humans, and Island Ecosystems: The Distribution, Antiquity, and Impacts of Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris) on California’s Channel Islands (with T. Rick, P. Walker, L. Willis, J. Erlandson, R. Vellanoweth, T. Braje, and D. Kennett). The Holocene 18(7):1-11, 2008. AAAnnnnnnaaa CCC...NNNoooaaahhh,,,PPPhhh...DDD... AAArrrccchhhaaaeeeooolllooogggiiisssttt PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS con’t. Status and Fish Consumption: Inter-Household Variability in a Simple Chiefdom Society on the California Coast. Presencia de la Arqueoichtiología en México, edited by Ana Fabiola Guzmán, Óscar J. Polaco, and Felisa J. Aguilar. Libro de Memorias de la 12a Reunión del Grupo de Trabajo en Restos de Peces del Consejo Internacional para la Arqueozoología, Guadalajara, Jalisco, México, September 4-12, 2003. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and Museo de Paleontología de Guadalajara “Federico A. Solórzano Barreto”, 2003. Common and Prestige Foods in an Elite Household: An Island Chumash Case (and J. E. Arnold). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, 2001. Early Holocene Coastal-Inland Connections in San Diego County: Evidence from the Windsong Shores Site Faunal Collection. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Riverside, 2001. Prehistoric Fishing on the San Diego Coast. Pacific Coast Archaeological Quarterly 34(2):1-31, 1998. Using Sample Survey Results to Address Regional Research Designs: An Example from Joshua Tree National Park. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 10:60-67. Society for California Archaeology, San Diego, 1997. Brass, Glass, Stone, and Bone: Items of Adornment from Riverside Chinatown. In Wong Ho Leun, An American Chinatown, Volume 2, edited by the Great Basin Foundation, pp. 395-414. Great Basin Foundation, San Diego, 1987. AWARDS Amerind Foundation Grant Recipient for Participation in Organized Symposium Across the Great Divide, Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies, AD 1400-1900, Society for American Archaeology Annual Meetings, Austin, April 25-29, 2007. Chancellor’s Dissertation Year Fellowship, UCLA, 2004-2005 National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant, 2002-2003 Ivor Noel Hume Fellowship for Historical Archaeology, UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, 2002 APPENDIX B RECORD SEARCH RESULTS APPENDIX C TECHNOLOGICAL CATEGORY ABBREVIATIONS NODULE CORE TECHNOLOGICAL CATEGORY ABBREVIATIONS NATURAL PLATFORM NP-1: Flake with natural cortical platform and 100% dorsal surface cortex NP-2: Flake with natural cortical platform and left and right lateral and distal dorsal surface cortex NP-3: Flake with natural cortical platform and left and right lateral dorsal surface cortex NP-4: Flake with natural cortical platform and left lateral and distal dorsal surface cortex NP-5: Flake with natural cortical platform and right lateral and distal dorsal surface cortex NP-6: Flake with natural cortical platform and left lateral dorsal surface cortex NP-7: Flake with natural cortical platform and right lateral dorsal surface cortex NP-8: Flake with natural cortical platform and a central strip of dorsal surface cortex NP-9: Flake with natural cortical platform and an isolated island of dorsal surface cortex NP-10: Flake with natural cortical platform and distal dorsal surface cortex NP-11: Flake with natural cortical platform and no dorsal surface cortex SINGLE-FACETED PLATFORM SFP-1: Flake with single-faceted platform and 100% dorsal surface cortex SFP-2: Flake with single-faceted platform and left and right lateral and distal dorsal surface cortex SFP-3: Flake with single-faceted platform and left and right lateral dorsal surface cortex SFP-4: Flake with single-faceted platform and left lateral and distal dorsal surface cortex SFP-5: Flake with single-faceted platform and right lateral and distal dorsal surface cortex SFP-6: Flake with single-faceted platform and left lateral dorsal surface cortex SFP-7: Flake with single-faceted platform and right lateral dorsal surface cortex SFP-8: Flake with single-faceted platform and a central strip of dorsal surface cortex SFP-9: Flake with single-faceted platform and an isolated island of dorsal surface cortex SFP-10: Flake with single-faceted platform and distal dorsal surface cortex SFP-11: Flake with single-faceted platform and no dorsal surface cortex MULTI-FACETED PLATFORM MFP-1: Flake with multi-faceted platform and 100% dorsal surface cortex MFP-2: Flake with multi-faceted platform and left and right lateral and distal dorsal surface cortex MFP-3: Flake with multi-faceted platform and left and right lateral dorsal surface cortex MFP-4: Flake with multi-faceted platform and left lateral and distal dorsal surface cortex MFP-5: Flake with multi-faceted platform and right lateral and distal dorsal surface cortex MFP-6: Flake with multi-faceted platform and left lateral dorsal surface cortex MFP-7: Flake with multi-faceted platform and right lateral dorsal surface cortex MFP-8: Flake with multi-faceted platform and a central strip of dorsal surface cortex MFP-9: Flake with multi-faceted platform and an isolated island of dorsal surface cortex MFP-10: Flake with multi-faceted platform and distal dorsal surface cortex MFP-11: Flake with multi-faceted platform and no dorsal surface cortex NONDIAGNOSTIC DEBITAGE Flake Frag/wc: Flake fragment with cortex Flake Frag/woc: Flake fragment without cortex Mod Fire Spall: Fire spall with flake removals Fire Spall: Flake resulting from fire Fire-F Cobble: Fire-fractured cobble Fire-F Flake: Fire-fractured flake Nat Unalt Cob: Natural unaltered cobble Nat unalt Flake: Natural unaltered flake FORMED ARTIFACT CATEGORY ABBREVIATIONS SFP Nodule Core: Nodule flake core with a single faceted platform Block Core: Flake core with a bifacial edge made on a large block 1005.AZ: Adze or SEUT (Steep Edged Unifacial Tool) or fragment 1021.BI: Battered implement or battered implement fragment APPENDIX D CATALOGS Pj . 6 - 0 8 O t a y R a n c h CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 M a s t e r C a t a l o g Ac c e s s i o n C a t N o U n i t T y p e D a t e C o l l e c t e d S C N o L e v e l A r t i f a c t P o r t i o n M a t e r i a l M o d 1 Q u a n L e n g t h W i d t h T h i c k W e i g h t ( g ) C o m m e n t s CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 1 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 1 3 S u r f a c e F a u n a l c o m s h e l l 3 C h i o n e ; 1 A r g o p e c t e n 4 1 4 . 1 L i k e l y n o t c u l t u r a l ; fr o m f i l l s o i l CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 2 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 1 3 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 1 . 5 CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 3 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 1 1 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 1 6 . 8 CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 4 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 1 0 S u r f a c e F a u n a l c o m s h e l l C h i o n e 1 0 . 2 L i k e l y n o t c u l t u r a l ; fr o m f i l l s o i l CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 5 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 6 S u r f a c e G r o u n d S t o n e f r a g m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 3 1 . 7 2 6 . 2 3 3 . 3 3 2 . 3 CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 6 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 8 S u r f a c e M a n o f r a g g r a n i t i c 1 6 2 . 3 6 0 . 6 4 3 . 6 1 5 8 . 3 CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 7 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 1 S u r f a c e F a u n a l c o m s h e l l C h i o n e 1 8 . 6 L i k e l y n o t c u l t u r a l ; fr o m f i l l s o i l CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 8 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 3 S u r f a c e F a u n a l c o m s h e l l C h i o n e 1 3 . 8 L i k e l y n o t c u l t u r a l ; fr o m f i l l s o i l CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 9 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 1 2 S u r f a c e F a u n a l c o m s h e l l 2 C h i o n e ; 1 C e r i t h i d e a ; 1 f o s s i l s h e l l 4 2 7 . 9 L i k e l y n o t c u l t u r a l ; fr o m f i l l s o i l CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 1 0 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 2 S u r f a c e F a u n a l c o m s h e l l C h i o n e 1 2 . 1 L i k e l y n o t c u l t u r a l ; fr o m f i l l s o i l CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 1 1 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 9 S u r f a c e F a u n a l f r a g s h e l l F o s s i l s h e l l 1 3 4 . 8 L i k e l y n o t c u l t u r a l ; fr o m f i l l s o i l CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 1 2 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 4 S u r f a c e F a u n a l f r a g s h e l l C h i o n e 1 1 2 . 3 L i k e l y n o t c u l t u r a l ; fr o m f i l l s o i l CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 1 3 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 5 S u r f a c e F a u n a l c o m s h e l l C h i o n e 1 1 5 . 2 L i k e l y n o t c u l t u r a l ; fr o m f i l l s o i l CA - S D I - 1 2 2 8 7 1 4 S u r f a c e 9 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 S C - 7 S u r f a c e M a n o c o m g r a n i t i c 1 1 3 2 . 1 1 1 8 . 1 7 2 . 3 1 7 0 0 . 0 Pa g e 1 Pj . 6 - 0 8 O t a y R a n c h CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 M a s t e r C a t a l o g Ac c e s s i o n C a t N o U n i t T y p e S C N o G P S P t L e v e l A r t i f a c t P o r t i o n M a t e r i a l Q u a n L e n g t h W i d t h T h i c k W e i g h t ( g ) CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 S u r f a c e 9 - 2 6 - c S u r f a c e S E U T c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 7 0 . 2 3 6 . 4 2 0 . 7 6 1 . 0 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 2 S u r f a c e 9 - 2 6 - e S u r f a c e B a t t e r e d I m p l e m e n t c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 8 5 . 5 6 5 . 1 7 0 4 0 0 . 0 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 3 S u r f a c e 9 - 2 6 - h S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 4 . 2 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 4 S u r f a c e 9 - 2 6 - i S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 2 . 5 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 5 S u r f a c e 9 - 2 6 - i S u r f a c e S E U T c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 5 2 3 1 1 8 . 3 4 1 . 0 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 6 S T P 2 9 - 2 6 - g 0 - 1 0 c m D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 1 . 2 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 7 S u r f a c e 2 1 S u r f a c e S E U T f r a g m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 7 0 3 7 . 7 2 4 . 9 6 2 . 5 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 8 S u r f a c e 3 0 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 3 2 . 3 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 9 S u r f a c e 9 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 4 . 2 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 0 S u r f a c e 2 7 S u r f a c e B a t t e r e d I m p l e m e n t c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 4 2 . 4 3 7 4 2 . 9 6 0 . 8 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 1 S u r f a c e 4 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 2 2 . 2 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 2 S u r f a c e 1 1 S u r f a c e G r o u n d S t o n e f r a g g r a n i t i c 1 6 6 . 7 5 7 . 8 5 3 1 5 6 . 5 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 3 S u r f a c e 2 5 S u r f a c e Ba t t e r e d I m p l e m e n t Fl a k e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 6 . 8 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 4 S u r f a c e 2 S u r f a c e Ba t t e r e d I m p l e m e n t Fl a k e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 0 . 8 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 5 S u r f a c e 6 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 8 . 8 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 6 S u r f a c e 1 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 1 . 0 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 7 S u r f a c e 8 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 1 . 1 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 8 S u r f a c e 2 2 S u r f a c e S E U T F l a k e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 3 . 1 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 1 9 S u r f a c e 5 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 4 . 8 CA - S D I - 1 4 1 7 6 2 0 S u r f a c e 3 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 1 . 9 Pa g e 1 Pj . 6 - 0 8 O t a y R a n c h CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 M a s t e r C a t a l o g Ac c e s s i o n C a t N o U n i t T y p e S C N o L e v e l A r t i f a c t P o r t i o n M a t e r i a l Q u a n L e n g t h W i d t h T h i c k W e i g h t ( g ) C o m m e n t s CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 1 S u r f a c e 2 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 1 5 . 7 CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 2 S u r f a c e 1 3 S u r f a c e B a t t e r e d I m p l e m e n t c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 1 1 8 . 7 8 8 . 3 3 8 . 2 5 0 0 . 0 CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 3 S u r f a c e 5 S u r f a c e N o n - A r t i f a c t c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 5 3 . 6 D i s c a r d e d CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 4 S u r f a c e 1 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 1 . 4 CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 5 S u r f a c e 3 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m u n d i f 2 5 0 . 3 CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 6 S u r f a c e 1 2 S u r f a c e D e b i t a g e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 3 5 . 3 CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 7 S u r f a c e 1 6 S u r f a c e F A R - N o n - A r t i f a c t c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 2 0 5 . 8 D i s c a r d e d CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 8 S u r f a c e 1 1 S u r f a c e S E U T c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 6 2 . 9 6 2 3 1 . 3 1 1 9 . 3 CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 9 S u r f a c e 4 S u r f a c e S E U T F l a k e c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 8 . 8 CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 1 0 S u r f a c e 1 5 S u r f a c e B a t t e r e d I m p l e m e n t c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 2 4 0 7 0 . 9 7 0 1 7 0 0 . 0 CA - S D I - 1 4 2 3 5 1 1 S u r f a c e 7 S u r f a c e S E U T c o m m e t a v o l c a n i c 1 1 3 7 . 1 1 2 0 . 9 5 4 . 6 1 1 0 0 . 0 Pa g e 1 Page 1 SITE NUMBER CAT # TECAT COMMENT CA-SDI-12287 2Flake Fragment/wc 3Nodule Core Flake, NP-11 Page 1 SITE NUMBER CAT # TECAT COMMENT CA-SDI-14176 1 1005.AZ made on flake 2 1021.BI 3 Nodule Core Flake, SFP-11 sheared cone 4 Nodule Core Flake, SFP-11 sheared cone 5 1005.AZ made on flake 6 Flake Fragment/woc 7 1005.AZ Fragment 8 Flake Fragment/wc 9 Nodule Core Flake, NP-10 10 1021.BI 11 Flake Fragment/wc 11 Nodule Core Flake, SFP-11 12 1021.BI Flake 13 1021.BI Flake 14 Nodule Core Flake, SFP-10 15 Nodule Core Flake, SFP-11 16 Flake Fragment/woc 17 1005.AZ Resharpen Flake 18 Nodule Core Flake, SFP-11 19 Flake Fragment/woc NP=Natural Platform SFP-Single Faceted Platform MFP=Multifaceted Platform /wc=With Cortex /woc=Without Cortex AZ=Adze/SUET BI=Battered Implement Page 1 SITE NUMBER CAT # TECAT COMMENT CA-SDI-14235 1 Nodule Core Flake, SFP-10 21021.BI on natural unaltered cobble 3 Natural Flake 4 Nodule Core Flake, SFP-10 5 Nodule Core Flake, NP-2 6 Nodule Core Flake, NP-11 7 Nodule Core Flake, MFP-11 8 Fire-Fractured Cobble 9 1005.AZ made on flake 10 1005.AZ Resharpen Flake 11 021.BI made on cylindrical cobble 12 1005.AZ made on large cobble NP=Natural Platform SFP-Single Faceted Platform MFP=Multifaceted Platform /wc=With Cortex /woc=Without Cortex AZ=Adze/SEUT BI=Battered Implement APPENDIX E SITE RECORD FORMS AND UPDATES (See Confidential Appendix) APPENDIX F NATIVE AMERICAN CORRESPONDENCE June 12, 2008 Larry Myers Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Myers, Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures VV, a9, aV99 1-, lU | 1u 9av w9, eevv i{ATWE Are!rcrx IfiTAGE qor|sgoil nianPltBrnl.iocf, lr/orEto.GACr.(rrat-3rr hcn05tn f afrlnGgrllt }d*qd#lr trsle20A Mr. Dtlr5 G.l!r. PmFa Irner oALLB3ot r rrtoclA"tl 5t7l Hil.Iht,&rbA CathLl CA9Ol0 S.ntDr FAXb: 7€SEl9.005o ilo. dPagps: 3 Deari;.G*!re: the ile|Ir A'lrt* tlcftr Comidm 1e3 .Df b peilmn a tGotd scelch of its S.cr€d Lantb FlL (SLD tu 0t. tcld pqlect rca Tlr Stt fild b ffilcrb lhe purn of lrldve An:irr crlbC nrur* h the inrdb Sqfcf rrr- Thc ablc of lpacllc tite lnfrrn*n h te SsS Lardr FL dG d glrrn}lha rbap dcird ruraa b any pr# Jr.. n- Firf r|n b h cb. pmlnfy O fabust tlrcotrcd pclirbric hdJ sil{rs rnd b bcrryedb hot nlrtrotr culrd ttrotroes. Eaf constt}dbr frr fffvo Arrrrtn iSl h yqr rr b llr brcf uqy b rvoad unantcb-d frorsdrc qc o pr*td b unfmry. Entrd b lte nt: dh tr:c tfus Ust ilt n frfrp olculnl rGiloErhh Ffd It.- A Hd rtr Arrricrt eglgab1ft!5|lo dyon lt b rdrbabb to corE ttc pasrc bH; lf lhey czrnd 3uppty yon fi|| spqJb hnmr|bn rEt te itlFct on culrl rnllGr Ury rry b auc b olr you u drer lD a firt buttf dftG e*rd rEatur h or mr tho rlfe*tl prqFct see. tcf ol s|rb rfl]E ddrEtsgtsC mrcs 6es fd Frclo tc cbtno of aauotdcA lg-qrD6. Ld ls*ffi q*b rrt E. rffrd h S 15870 ot lhe dtnt Bnimmtd qrD Ad GEaD r|trn rUtcaf .rfrd tssouror carU be drftd !y r pfA Alo, h* Reocu Od S.dur 1$a.5(f) ad Secilon 15G7-S and l{.- I ry O.b S.c5o 7W S rmrSc br po*brs b rofrGfy Govered erdn*gi:{ mua Cft Gcfitbo JJ nrlzts lp Fcrsca b b tH in the acil of m 6rtl des:l of ay hrr tgr-t h I g|Ild hc{ol ilr lrr a t|Frd ocnrobrt. trlar*n dte tull| tr l*bdd h yar Elulrattlf &cuGr - apphtr. llo lsw rtqdorr&dl-rrprbtorrrqrd. pbGGdo nol hcibb b '|t sl Altecfrmnt lldive ConbaLbt oc/L8/20OE 12:10 FA.tr 9rO 657 5t90 NASC lSwAnrler OenlrCrSa llegpOqtrty JrrE 18,20G Bilna &u.pdtnC#n Gran& nhqda utegtsScaho, Chelpelsr lG5 Brma Rodrlrrb , cA eoao srebenn+osn.gov Grsl/|4ss'rtfl++r0€1 Oiqrpm la Ka Batd d f/&Edon hdarts OsUAynkada" Cl*prsn FOBo( 1120 Bqrerud ' CA glglE (619) 47&2f 13 0ts7:&2125 Oieg.crro Srt hqtat Bad of Missbn lndiflB Algl E. lr*Botr, Cnailprton POBorgS6 v*y conFT , GA 9alF2 (7O) 7|9gam C/GI)) 7f9€a76 Fax Oiqueno SrrtaYsabd Band d Diegr€tp lndians Jolfiry l{ernandea" Spolcegnrr PO Bo( 130 SgttrYsabel ' CA 9a07D bm.IeratfiOyahoo.com (7q)) 76sG.5 (76O) 75eG!2o Far tXsgwno Tl5 E b crdg|t r d ir (h of llrL tEnL Q ooz S'crrrt Bndof thc lfutneyary t{ann DtnyTuckcr, Cnd4ersst 54ltg $urn Road Oiegr.ern (rfiryaay E|e*n , Cn mtl2l ss|YresillurH}sn€trv 619.4$2613 619 f15.1927 Fax \/b|as Bnd of llbiqt hfrts 8obry L 8an€G Ct*pemon POEo(sE @Algirn , CA 9r9G} rho.ra'evielasnsn.gov (6re1r+s.38tt (61$ |45697 tax l(trncyeay Ol|hrd Flbbtb Comrinee Ron ChFtnan S0 VttG Grde Road Dicgt ctton(rrrnsyary AFirr . GA Sml (619) f,l5,Gt85 Jamjl hdien \rkc W$krn f/ba, Clufpersn P-O. Bo( 812 Jarul , GA 91935 iamdrcz@sctdv.net (6re) oH785 (619) 6*48178 - Far E ieglxdlfurnaFay fifQrb.r st i- ri rE rg raa t' FrrC .tnt cFilt - It h S tFS ot h li-r .il, slt col -fir :Eg otF ant brr cdd t*lh Dt.r- cbAr* ircrc gd, ft rif oq'.!*- E oQ hr u- rft - rr-b- rn- -r I FFqrymrm-Frd.fri3il'DE ||tr-EFtDtbpr|lbr d t) t|E. b.C 'Dr*.r E - nl/rb c- c H r lrtfl rr lb ntG srt t-$ FT Er reP wt' Gr-il:. s|n ucao L€uily .Arp tE, 206 Uca Grgde Bend of t,ts*m Ind|ans Kmrryry Cuhjrd nepatiaion Committee lfr< Rorro, Ch*pelon SSrre BanegG, Spokespelsr P.O Bo(zru Diegrreno 1095 Barcna Road oiegumorKumeya€ry S€rtaYsab€N , CA S(nO Ldc*te , CA 92O4O rpsgranOcOr|d@rnsn.csn (619) 74as5s7 (7ro) rua€818 (6tel sgoeu FAx (7f,)) 782{192 Fq Kumayaay Guttural l-leribge Prcsenntirn Pard Cuero Clint Lhbrt 361s)Ctllch Fbd, SuibS Dgucm/xrnqaey P.O. Eor507 Oneg'srOtcu'eyaa' Cflnpo , CA 9l$6 Sillaysabd , CA 9A070 chdnnan@carnpo-nsn.goy (760) ffe56e4 (619) 478€OaO gllnbnT3@al.com (619) 478€5Os (6t9)47&5818 Fax Kwaaymii laguna Bard of L,lisdotl lndians Garren bcas P.O. Box 775 Oiegusro - Pirc Valey , CA 919@ (619) 78,4407 hda Bend of M-ssim lndians Rebecca O$rta, Spo*espsrsort 309 S. lrlap|e S:beet Olegrrno Esconfido , CA W6 Qfil73f,-7|,P8 OeO) 7Y.8s68 Fa ?ll X b crrq*anat - d tb bd ltl doanra HDttba C urb |I CE rEr r* rU F.r C rf-ry rqn* r ifd fr lFdo.r 7lm,5 ot ta tbni..{ |d|U Od} 5o StJf d h tllll h-r|E Cla.r|. H IU.. d tt ]S b.E 6, ru3f,.. b od|.tghHlro? or5|| b-l ttt! rrrtl|3 rl rqdb dtril r-rcrtt Gr FQF. frt t:!i hld- Ftor I qald 9ntry r liafi l*d oad hrlrr pu**b l|-Flrldo|r ot|: f!!f tb.|B trr-*rr E d br lrrtbr a-d .mr th t ttlad fo tt ntc 5Liltlcgnqreotfr.S.nh. June 20, 2008 Steve Banegas Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee 1095 Barona Road Lakeside, CA 92040 Dear Mr. Banegas: Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 Bobby L. Barrett Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians P.O. Box 908 Alpine, CA 91903 Dear Mr. Barrett, Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 Ron Christman Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee 56 Viejas Grade Road Alpine, CA 92001 Dear Mr. Christman: Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 Paul Cuero Kumeyaay Cultural Heritage Preservation 36190 Church Road, Suite 5 Campo, CA 91906 Dear Mr. Cuero: Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 Johnny Hernandez Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueño Indians P.O. Box 130 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 Dear Mr. Hernandez: Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2007 Allen E. Lawson San Pasqual Band of Indians P.O. Box 365 Valley Center, CA 92082 Dear Mr. Lawson, Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2007 Allen E. Lawson San Pasqual Band of Indians P.O. Box 365 Valley Center, CA 92082 Dear Mr. Lawson, Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 Carmen Lucas Kwaaymii P.O. Box 775 Pine Valley, CA 91962 Dear Carmen: Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 William Mesa Jamul Indian Village P.O. Box 612 Jamul, CA 91935 Dear Mr. Mesa: Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 William Mesa Jamul Indian Village P.O. Box 612 Jamul, CA 91935 Dear Mr. Mesa: Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 Rebecca Osuna Inaja Band of Mission Indians 309 S. Maple Street Escondido, CA 92025 Dear Ms. Osuna, Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 Gwendolyn Parada La Posta Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 1120 Boulevard, CA 91905 Dear Ms. Parada, Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 Mark Romero Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 270 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 Dear Mr. Romero, Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 Danny Tucker Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 5459 Sycuan Road El Cajon, CA 92021 Dear Mr. Tucker: Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures June 20, 2008 Rhonda Welch-Scalco Barona Group of the Capitan Grande 1095 Barona Road Lakeside, CA 92040 Dear Ms. Welch-Scalco, Gallegos & Associates is in the process of preparing a record search, literature review, and field survey for the Otay Ranch project. The project area is located in Otay Mesa, south San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). The record search will identify: previously recorded sites; sites nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and potential National Register Properties; Traditional Cultural Properties; and will provide recommendations to protect any identified significant cultural resources within the Otay Ranch project area. We respectfully request any information and/or input that you may have regarding Native American concerns either directly or indirectly associated with this project. We are also interested in knowing if there are individuals in the area who should be contacted prior to completion of this study. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards, Dennis Gallegos Project Manager Enclosures APPENDIX G CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST 1 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 8 WEST, CITY OF CHULA VISTA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Anna C. Noah, Ph.D. July 2, 2010 INTRODUCTION This cultural resource report addresses proposed offsite improvements associated with development of Otay Ranch Village 8 West in Chula Vista, San Diego County, California (Figure 1). These improvements consist of a storm drain and sewer line and associated easement access road, which would accommodate a trail connection to the Otay Valley Regional Park connector trail north of Otay River. The storm drain and sewer line would be constructed within a 50-foot-wide trench extending from the southern end of the Village 8 West parcel southwesterly to an existing sewer trunk line in a dirt road (Figure 2). The storm drain outlet would drain into the Otay River. The easement road/trail would occupy the same 50-foot area. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) consists of a 150-foot-wide area generally centered on the proposed 50-foot-wide trench. All construction activity, including vehicular access, trenching operations, soil stockpiling, and materials storage would be confined to the APE. This report is an addendum to a larger report addressing Village 8 West, entitled Cultural Resource Survey and Test for Otay Ranch Village 8 West, Chula Vista, San Diego County, California, prepared by Gallegos & Associates (2010). PREVIOUS RESEARCH Gallegos & Associates obtained a cultural resource record search from the South Coastal Information Center for the Otay Ranch Village 8 West project. Two previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the storm drain/sewer line project APE. These sites and their relationship to the APE are shown in Figure 3 and described below. ¬«54 ¬«52 ¬«125 §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦5 §¨¦805 §¨¦5 §¨¦5 §¨¦8 §¨¦805 §¨¦15 §¨¦8 §¨¦15 §¨¦15 ¨©6 ¨©905 ¨©2 ¨©13 ¨©S3 ¨©22¨©2 OP94 OP67 OP79 OP78 OP52 OP76 OP371 OP15 OP209 OP125 OP75 OP56 OP56 OP78 OP125 OP94 OP94 OP76 OP79 OP79 OP79 OP78 OP78 OP78 OP125 0 52.5Miles Noah Archaeological Consulting Regional Project Location FIGURE 1 P a c i f i c O c e a n Camp Pendleton Oceanside Carlsbad Encinitas Solana Beach Del Mar La Jolla San Diego Imperial Beach Chula Vista Mexico El Cajon Santee Poway Vista San Marcos Escondido Ramona Alpine Julian Mexico Nevada Oregon Idaho CC aa ll ii ff oo rr nn ii aa kj San Diego County Valley Center Otay Mesa Legend kj Project Area kj Project Area Õ Noah Archaeological Consulting 1,00001,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000500Feet 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.50.25 Miles 1 0 10.5 Kilometers Scale 1:24,000 FIGURE2Project area shown on USGS Map Otay Mesa 7.5' USGS Map Village 8 West Offsite Improvements Legend Village 8 West Not A Part 4 FIGURE 3 PROJECT APE AND PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES (See Confidential Appendix) 5 CA-SDI-4789 In 1973, Michael Waters recorded CA-SDI-4789 as a temporary camp consisting of flakes, cores, and flake tools. Brian F. Smith submitted a site form update to the SCIC in 1996 showing an expanded site boundary, based on a 1989 field survey (Smith: personal communication 2010). In 1994, Caltrans contracted with Brian F. Mooney Associates to perform a Phase II study at CA-SDI-4789 to evaluate the significance of the site. The Phase II study consisted on a surface collection and excavation of 22 STPs. The surface collection recovered 461 artifacts, including debitage (n=403), cores (n=28), a utilized flake, a bifacially modified artifact, battered implements (n=3) and ceramics (n=22). A systematic excavation of 20 shovel test pits (STPs) at the junctures of a 50 m interval grid and two judgmentally placed STPs resulted in the recovery of four pieces of debitage and five ceramic sherds from two of the STPs. The researchers concluded that the site was essentially a surface scatter and that the testing and analysis program had exhausted the site’s research potential (Schaefer et al. 1994). CA-SDI-12809 Charlotte McGowen, a professor at Southwestern College, originally identified a small portion of CA-SDI-12809, calling it Cal.F:5:1 (a San Diego State University Anthropology Department designation). McGowen directed a field school at this portion of the site for over a decade. Artifacts recovered by the field school include large quantities of flaked lithics and ground stone, ceramics, clay balls, soapstone arrow-shaft straighteners and a turtle “fetish”, shell beads and an ornament, a shell fishhook, glass trade beads, and bone tools. McGowan reported many hearths and a possible “temescal” (sweathouse). Human remains were also recovered from this area of the site (McGowen 1997; Rosen 1989), which is located about 1.3 km east of proposed offsite improvement area. 6 In 1989, Martin Rosen greatly expanded the boundaries of the site to cover an entire lower bench above the Otay River, an area roughly 2000 m long by 100 meters wide. Rosen described an artifact scatter over the entire bench with densities varying from light to extensive. In 1996, Brian F. Smith submitted a site form update to the SCIC, based on fieldwork carried out in 1989 (Smith 2010:personal communication). The update provides site dimensions of 2,164 m by 198 m and a map showing the site extending into a drainage channel located a short distance west of Rosen’s western site boundary. Caltrans contracted with Brian F. Mooney Associates to evaluate the significance of SDI- 12809 (McDonald et al. 1993). A grid system was laid out across the entire site, and an STP was excavated at every 20 m intersection point within the established grid. In areas where artifact densities were considered moderate or high, additional STPs were excavated at 5- or 10-m intervals to further delineate the boundaries of concentrations. Eight hundred (800) STPs were excavated across the site. In addition, 27 1x1 m units were placed within defined loci (areas of artifact concentration) and in potential SR-125 construction impact zones. Ten distinct areas of artifact and midden deposition were identified and, from these, two major site occupational areas were identified (Locus A, including the Southwestern College field school area, and combined loci H, I, and J). Native American heritage concerns were also apparent, with the possible presence of a sweathouse in Locus A and human remains from several loci. Radiocarbon dates were obtained on charcoal samples and ranged between 260 + 80 BP and 560 + 120 BP. It has been suggested that the site may be a remnant of the ethnohistoric village of Otay or one of its satellite villages, although archival research did not reveal the location of the village complex. (McDonald et al. 1993). CA-SDI-12809 was recommended as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D (McDonald 1993; Rosen 1995). The research potential associated with the two major occupational areas was cited as justification for the recommendation (McDonald 1993:vii). On May 25, 1995, the Office of Historic Preservation concurred with this recommendation. 7 Because the site has had a formal determination of eligibility to the NRHP, it automatically is included in the California Register of Historic Resources. FIELD METHODS The APE was intensively surveyed on foot by a team consisting of Anna Noah, Nick Doose, and Gabe Kitchen, a Kumeyaay monitor provided by Red Tail Monitoring & Research, Inc. Beginning at the south end of the APE, longitudinal transects spaced at 7- to 8-m intervals were walked to the north end of the APE and back. Artifact locations were mapped using a handheld GPS unit and photographs were taken of each artifact. Ground visibility ranged from excellent in a recently plowed field, dirt roads, and bare patches to poor, owing to dense low grasses and forbs over much of the lower terrace. The fieldwork took place on February 18, 2010. SURVEY RESULTS The survey was positive. Both CA-SDI-4789 and CA-SDI-12809 were relocated. The results for each site are presented below. CA-SDI-4789 The site area occupies a recently plowed agricultural field in which the ground surface is unobscured. One artifact, a core made from local fine-grained metavolcanic material, was observed (Figure 4). CA-SDI-12809 A single fine-granted metavolcanic flake was noted on the site outside the APE (Figure 4). 8 FIGURE 4 TRENCH LOCATION, SURVEY AREA (APE), SITE BOUNDARIES, AND RESULTS OF 1993 STP TEST PROGRAM AT CA-SDI-12809 (See Confidential Appendix) 9 SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION CA-SDI-4789 The site area would be directly impacted by construction of the storm drain and sewer line (Figure 4). Previous testing of CA-SDI-4789 resulted in the conclusion that the site’s research potential had been exhausted by the testing and artifact analysis. Nevertheless, there remains the possibility that subsurface features, including human remains, could be recovered during construction. Therefore, implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in Section 7.6 of this report would be required. CA-SDI-12809 The proposed project APE is in an area previously tested by Brian F. Mooney Associates. Figure 4 shows that 6 STPs were excavated within the APE, all with negative results. STPs were excavated at 20 m intersection points on the established grid seen in the figure. The number of artifacts recovered from each STP is shown at the intersection point. As shown in Figure 4, the closest positive STP location is approximately 150 m east of the APE. That STP produced one artifact. Of the two major occupational areas identified through previous testing, the closest is the loci H, I, J group, located a minimum of 325 m east of the APE. Based on the results of previous testing, there is little likelihood that subsurface deposits occur within the APE. However, because of the possibility that subsurface features and/or human remains could be uncovered during construction, implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in Section 7.6 of this report would be required. 10 REFERENCES CITED McDonald, M., C. Serr, and J. Schaefer 1993Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of CA-SDI-12,809, A Late Prehistoric Habitation Site in the Otay River Valley, San Diego County, California. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego. McGowen, C. 1997Final Report of the Excavation of Cal. F:5:1 (CA-SDI-12,809). On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego. Rosen, M. 1989Archaeological Site Record for CA-SDI-12,809. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego. 1995Historic Property Survey Report for SR-125. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego. Schaefer, J., D. Saunders, and C. Serr 1994Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Prehistoric Sites CA-SDI-4739, CA-SDI- 4741/4742, CA-SDI-4743, CA-SDI-4789/4988, CA-SDI-11,367/11,368 and CA- SDI-11,372 in the Otay River Area, San Diego County, California. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego.