Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6607; CMP Replacement Hoover/Lagoon & Highland/Adams; CMP Replacement Hoover/Lagoon & Highland/Adams; 2002-04-01ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement Program Hoover/Lagoon and Highland/Adams City of Carlsbad, California Prepared by: id H David Stone, M.A., RPA Ken Victorino, M.A., RPA DUDEK 621 Chapala Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Tel. (805) 963-0651 Prepared for: City of Carlsbad - Utilities Engineering Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 USGS San Luis Rey, California 7.5 Minute Quadrangle April 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. SUi^lviARY OF FINDINGS ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 3.0 SOURCES CONSULTED 5 3.1 Cultural Resources Records Search 5 3.2 Native American Consultation 7 4.0 BACKGROUND 8 4.1 Environment 8 4.2 Prehistory 9 4.3 Ethnohlstory 11 4.4 History 14 5.0 FIELD METHODS 15 6.0 STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 17 7.0 OTHER RESOURCES..... 18 8.0 REFERENCES 19 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1 Regional Map 2 Figure 2 Vicinity Map 3 Figure 3 Area of Potential Effect (APE) 4 Table 1 Native American Consultation Summary 8 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Cultural Resources Records Search (Bound Separately) Appendix B Native American Consultation SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The City of Carlsbad (City) proposes to either replace or repair sections of pipe at two locations: Adams Street/Highland Drive; and Hoover Street/Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Dudek prepared this Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) at the request of the City to document archaeological resources that might be affected by the proposed Project. An archaeological literature and records search was conducted at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), for the proposed Project in March, 2012. At least two investigations have been undertaken within the proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE). Two prehistoric archaeological sites are located within or adjacent to the APE. The proposed APE was the subject of an intensive ar(:haeological survey by Dudek Senior Archaeologist Ken Victorino in March, 2012. The APE has been disturbed by construction activities associated with the installation of the existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP) storm drain. Weathered shell fragments were observed in the proposed Hoover/Lagoon location. However, the shell was observed in an area disturbed by installation of the existing CMP storm drain and no other prehistoric cultural material such as chipped stone artifacts was identified. If unexpected archaeological materials are encountered during construction, work should stop in that area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. If human remains are unearthed during construction. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Carlsbad (City) proposes to repair and replace approximately 630 linear feet of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) in two separate locations along the northern edge of Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the City of Carlsbad, in San Diego County (see Figures 1 and 2). The Project Area of Potential Effect (APE) (see Figure 3) includes areas where repair and/or replacement of CMP will occur. This report documents the background research. Native American consultation, and archaeological survey conducted for the proposed Project. The report was prepared by Dudek archaeologists David Stone, M.A., RPA, and Ken Victorino, M.A., RPA. Mr. Stone has over 30 years' experience in central and southern California and Mr. Victorino has 20 years' experience. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed Project area is located in Section 8 of Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the San Luis Rey, California U.S. Geological Service (USGS) 7.5' topographic quadrangle, within the County of San Diego (see Figure 2). The proposed Project is located in two separate locations along the northern edge of Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the City of Carlsbad: along Hoover Street, southwest of Adams Street, adjacent to the lagoon (Hoover/Lagoon Location) and; at the intersection of Highland Drive and Adams Street (Highland/Adams Location). The proposed Project is the repair and replacement of approximately 630 linear feet of CMP (see Figure 3). Hoover/Lagoon Location The Hoover/Lagoon location involves repairing approximately 474 linear feet of CMP with a cured-in-place liner and replacing approximately 24 linear feet of CMP with high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. The Hoover/Lagoon location also includes the construction of the following components: a catch basin, storm drain cleanout, concrete drainage ditch, concrete dike, curb, headwall, and riprap energy dissipater. DUDEK 7216 SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series San Luis Rey Quadrangle FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map Corrugated Metal Pipe Replacement SOURCE: Bing 2012 FIGURE 3 Area of Potential Effect (APE) Corrugated Metal Pipe Highland/Adams Location The Highland/Adams location involves replacing approximately 132 linear feet of damaged and degraded CMP with reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). This location also includes the construction of the following components: two catch basins; two storm drain cleanouts; a concrete drainage swale; a concrete drainage ditch; a concrete spillway; and a riprap energy dissipater. The APE includes areas where CMP will be repaired and replaced and other components will be constructed. 3.0 SOURCES CONSULTED This section describes the methods and results of the records search conducted at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and summarizes correspondence with the Native American Heritage Commission and Native Americans regarding the proposed project. 3.1 Cultural Resources Records Search An archaeological site records and literature search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), was conducted on March 26, 2012 by Nick Doose, SCIC Information Officer, to identify all recorded archaeological sites within 1/2 mile of the proposed project area (see Appendix A). The records search identified all known archaeological sites and historic resources, within this distance, and any previous cultural resource surveys within the project site. The SCIC records indicate that 45 investigations have been completed within 1/2 mile of the APE. Of these, two investigations have addressed the northern and southern portions of the Hoover/Lagoon site (Mooney 1993, Gallegos 2003), and one has addressed the entirety of the Highland/Adams site (Mooney 1993). Two prehistoric archaeological sites are recorded within or adjacent to the Project site: CA- SDI-13701 encompasses the Highland/Adams Project area; and CA-SDI-18613 is located adjacent to the southeast corner of the Hoover/Lagoon Project area. CA-SDI-13701 (W-130) CA-SDI-13701 was originally recorded by M. Rogers as a large shell midden (soils resulting from the decomposition of organic food remains including shellfish, and animal meats resulting in a darker, silty loam context) with ground and chipped stone artifacts. In 1994, Gallegos & Associates conducted a survey for the Moffatt Parcel and identified a "relatively undisturbed portion of the midden" with chipped and ground stone artifacts in a level area near the top of a ridge in the western portion of the archaeological site, just south of Adams Street and approximately 100 meters (328 feet) iaway from the proposed Project APE. Fewer numbers of chipped and ground stone artifacts were also identified in an area just north of the Highland Drive and Adams Street intersection and just north the proposed Project APE. Despite this, the overall integrity of the site was recorded as poor. In 2004, Gallegos & Associates conducted a survey of the Adams Street Property and indicated that the archaeological deposit within the Adams Street Property project area had been destroyed by activities associated with the construction of a concrete ditch and brick wall, the installation of a metal fence, grading, and landscaping. Based on the disturbances within the Adams Street Property project area and the resulting destruction of the archaeological deposit within the Adams Street Property project area, no further archaeological investigation including testing and/or construction monitoring for the Adams Street Property project was recommended. Based on the CA-SDI-13701 Archaeological Site Record, in 2006, Brian F. Smith & Associates excavated a portion of CA-SDI-13701 located south of Adams Street, south and east of the current Highland/Adams location and approximately 35 meters (115 feet) away from the proposed Project APE, for the Adams Street Subdivision project. Excavations consisted of shovel test pits and one 1x1 meter unit. The excavations indicated that the archaeological deposit in this particular area was a result of erosion frotn archaeological deposits located up- slope. It was determined that the archaeological deposit in this particular area lacked the ability to answer research questions and was not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). It was not considered a significant archaeological resource according to CEQA and City of Carisbad guidelines. It therefore would not be considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Adams Street Subdivision project impacts on archaeological resources were characterized as less than significant. No data recovery excavation program was proposed but archaeological monitoring of construction was recommended in the event that unknown, potentially significant resources might be encountered,during grading. In 2009, ASM Affiliates conducted a Phase II testing program at CA-SDI-13701 as part of the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor (NAHI) Westem Segment Realignment Project (ASM 2009). The testing determined the portion of CA-SDI-13701 within the NAHI project area is not eligible for listing on the CRHR or the NRHP. Archaeological and Native American monitoring during NAHI project construction identified only sparsely scattered shell. CA-SDI-18613 (NAHI-S-1) CA-SDI-18613 was recorded by Gallegos & Associates in,2007 as an artifact scatter consisting of two "battered implements" and two ground stone fragments during a survey for the NAHI Sewer Project, adjacent to the southeast corner of the Hoover/Lagoon location. In 2009, ASM Affiliates conducted a Phase II testing program at CA-SDI-18613 as part of the NAHI Western Segment Realignment Project (ASM 2009). The testing determined that CA-SDI-18613 represents a secondary (disturbed and imported) deposit of prehistoric archaeological materials, and is not eligible for listing on the CRHR or the NRHP. 3.2 Native American Consultation A search of the Native American Heritage Commission's (NAHC) Sacred Land File was requested on March 9, 2012, and was conducted on March 26, 2012 (Dave Singleton, NAHC Program Analyst) to determine the presence of any Native American cultural resources within the proposed project area (see Appendix B). The NAHC indicated that no known Native American heritage resources are identified within the proposed project area. The NAHC identified nine Native American contacts, both tribes and individuals, who would potentially have specific knowledge as to whether or not other cultural resources are identified in the APE that could be at-risk. Letters to these contacts were sent out on April 10, 2012. Table 3 summarizes this consultation. Table 1. Native American Consultation Summary Contact Name Contact Dates/Method Response Pala Band of Mission Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Shasta Gaughen April 10, 2012, LeOier to Shasta Gaughen No Response Pauma Valley Band of Luiseno Indians, Bennae Calac, Tribal Council Member April 10, 2012, Letiier to Bennae Calac No Response Rincon Band of Mission Indians, Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson April 10, 2012, Letiier to Bo Mazzetti No Response Pauma & Yuima Reservation, Randall Majel, Chairperson April 10, 2012, Letiier to Randall Majel No Response Pechanga Band of Mission Indian, Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources Manager April 10, 2012, LeH:er to Paul Macarro No Response San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, Tribal Council April 10, 2012, Leti:er to Tribal Council No Response Rincon Band of Mission Indian, Cultural & Environmental, Tiffany Wolfe April 10, 2012, LeO:er to Tiffany Wolfe No Response San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, Cultural Department April 10, 2012, Letiier to Cultural Department No Response La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, James Trujillo, Vice Chair April 10, 2012, Letiier to James Trujillo No Response 4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 Environment The project site is located along the northern edge of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, in the City of Carlsbad. The existing environment is characterized by residential development and undeveloped open space. Soils within the APE consist of Carisbad gravelly loamy sand and marina loamy coarse sand. The topography slopes southwest toward the lagoon, and elevation ranges from 0 feet mean sea level (msl) to 80 feet above msl. 4.2 Prehistory Various cultural sequences have been defined for coastal California and San Diego County (e.g.. Bull 1987; Ezell 1987; Moriarty 1966; Warren 1987). For consistency, this report will rely on a terminological sequence (i.e., Paleoindian, Archaic, Late Prehistoric). Paleoindian Period (12,000-8,000 B.P.) The Paleoindian period, also known as the San Dieguito complex, dates from circa 12,000 to 8,000 Before Present ("B.P.") and is typified by artifact assemblages consisting of typical hunter-gatherer flaked lithic tools, such as scrapers, scraper planes, choppers, and large projectile points (Davis et al. 1969; Moratto 1984; Warren 1987). A cooler and wetter climate during this period resulted in more widespread pinion-juniper and riparian plant communities. Sites occupied during this time suggest that the hunting of deer and smaller mammals was central to the San Dieguito economy. Typical Paleoindian assemblages do not contain millingstone technology. Although no consensus has been reached among archaeologists, some information suggests that the San Dieguito complex may have evolved into the La Jolla complex or Archaic Period between about 9,000 and 8,000 years B.P. (Eriandson 1994). This transitional period is supported by the presence of artifacts such as eccentric crescents and spire-ground Olivella beads in both complexes. A "type" site that demonstrates this relationship is CA-SDI-210, a multi-component midden site located south of Carlsbad on the north shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Moriarty 1967). In the upper levels, the nearly 2-meter-deep midden contained milling tools attributed to the La Jolla Complex. No milling stones were found below 130 centimeters, but scrapers, choppers, and hammerstones typical of the La Jolla Complex were found throughout all levels of the midden, and the soil profile exposed a homogeneous deposit lacking obvious stratification. A sample of shell from the base of the midden returned a radiocarbon date of 9020 ± 500 radiocarbon years before present. There has been significant debate over the past two decades regarding the relationship between sites relating to the San Dieguito complex and the later La Jolla complex. These arguments have produced an alternative interpretation that considers both cultural phenomena as "functional variants of a single adaptive system" (Reddy and Byrd 1997). This hypothesis has gained support from the development of the paleocoastal model that suggests the initial occupants of coastal California were generalized hunter-gatherers rather than big- game specialists. Archaic Period (8,000-2,000 B.P.) The Archaic period (La Jolla/Pauma complex) lasted until approximately 2,000 B.P. Archaic period adaptations are expressed in the La Jolla complex as a shift from generalized hunting and gathering to a subsistence strategy focused on the exploitation of marine resources (primarily shellfish and fish). Most La Jollan sites are located along the coast and major drainage systems and are characterized by the appearance of millingstone technology (basin metates and manos), shell middens, cobble tools, discoidals, a small number of Pinto and Elko series points, and flexed burials. In the interior of San Diego County, Archaic adaptations are represented by the Pauma complex (True 1958). Although the Pauma complex shares similarities with the coastal adaptation, Pauma sites generally reflect reduced exploitation of marine resources, contain a greater frequency of milling equipment, and have fewer hammer/chopper and planning/scrapping tools (True and Beemer 1982). In addition, archaeological manifestations of the Pauma complex are generally located in upland contexts, ovel-looking drainages. Late Prehistoric Period (2,000-200 B.P.) The Late Prehistoric period is characterized by the introduction of ceramics and changes in burial traditions and lithic technology. Flexed inhumations are replaced with cremation burials, and small pressure-tiaked projectile points make an appearance. There is a shift from littoral resource exploitation to an emphasis on inland plant (especially acorns) food collection, processing, and storage. These changes are believed to be associated with a migration of Yuman-speaking people from the eastern Colorado River region around 2,000 B.P. (Rogers 1945) and Shoshonean speakers after 1,500 B.P. (Moratiio 1984; True 1966). 10 During this period, inland semi-sedentary villages were established along major watercourses, and mountain areas were seasonally occupied to exploit acorns and pinon nuts. r In the northern part of San Diego County, the Late Prehistoric period is represented by the San Luis Rey complex (Meighan 1954; True et al. 1974), which is considered to represent the Shoshonean predecessors of the Luiseno. The San Luis Rey complex is divided into two phases: San Luis Rey I, a pre-ceramic phase lasting from circa A.D. 1400-1750 (Meighan 1954; True et al. 1974); and San Luis Rey II, a ceramic phase from A.D. 1750-1850 (Meighan 1954). The San Luis Rey II complex differs primarily in the appearance of cremation urns, ceramics, and red and black pictographs. Ceramics may have entered into the San Diego region as early as circa A.D. 1200-1600 (True et al. 1974), but did not become common until the ceramic phase of the San Luis Rey complex. True and Waugh (1982) describe a diachronic model of settlement and subsistence change during the Late Prehistoric period of Luiseno occupation. They suggest that settlement patterns during approximately A.D. 1-1500 were characterized by small, briefly occupied campsites located in a variety of locations, a classic indication of what is now called a foraging strategy. After A.D. 1500, they suggest that settlement patterns became more territorial, focused on specific drainages, and reflected a collector-oriented strategy. Sites included permanent villages in the western foothills and permanent summer camps in the mountains. 4.3 Ethnohlstory A wide range of historical, ethnohistorical, and ethnographic sources provide an outiine of the ethnohlstory of the region. Historical documents include the sacramental and census registers (padrones) of the Franciscan missions, as well as various documents from early explorers (e.g., Bolton's 1927 translation of the Crespi diary of the Portola Expedition). A large body of ethnographic and ethnohistorical sources provides information on a wide range of topics including settlement, subsistence, social organization, population size, and cosmology of the people who lived in the region when the Spanish arrived (Bean and Shipek 1978; Earie and O'Neil 1994; Harrington 1933, 1986; Johnson 1998; Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1995, 1996; Rivers 1991; Sparkman 1908). 11 Cultural Affiliation The Shoshonean inhabitants of northern San Diego County were called Luisenos by Franciscan friars, who named the San Luis Rey River and in 1798 established the San Luis Rey Mission in the heart of Luiseno territory. Their territory encompassed an area roughly from Agua Hedionda Creek north to Aliso Creek on the coast, and inland to Santiago Peak and Palomar Mountain (Bean and Shipek 1978). The Luisefio shared boundaries with the Gabrielino and Serraiio to the west and northwest, the Cahuilla from the deserts to the east, the Cupeno to the southeast, and the Ipai or Kumeyaay to the south. LuiseRo, Gabrielino, Serrano, Cahuilla, and Cupeno belong to the Takic subfamily of Uto-Aztecan, but the Ipai are classified in the Yuman language family (Bean and Shipek 1978). Social and Settiement Organization The Luiseiios were divided into several autonomous lineages or kin groups based on a patrilineal and patrilocal social system. The lineage represented the basic political unit among most southern Califomian Native Americans. The exact nature of settlement dynamics of the Luiseno is still debated. According to Bean and Shipek (1978), the Luisefio exploited a wide range of resources in a bimodal seasonal system. Most inland groups had fishing and gathering sites on the coast that they visited annually when the tides were low or when inland foods were scarce from January to March. The mountain camp was occupied by most of the village population during October and November, when acorns were harvested and game animals hunted. Each lineage had exclusive hunting and gathering rights in their procurement ranges, and trespassers were seriously punished (Bean and Shipek 1978). It has been suggested that coastal Luiseiio groups stayed along the seashore the entire year instead of utilizing the bimodal system discussed above (Koerper 1981). Alternatively, Shipek (1977) suggests that the Luiseno occupied permanent villages in a variety of ecological zones and made seasonal forays to procure specific resources from particular localities. 12 Subsistence Patterns Acorns were an important food source to the Luiseno, as they were with most inland communities of Takic speakers in southern California. Acorns were collected in the fall and then stored in either conical shaped granaries or in ceramic storage pots (McCawley 1995). It is unclear how important acorns were to the coastal inhabitants, but many researchers believe that these nuts may have composed up to 25 percent of the diet (Bean and Shipek 1978; Earle and O'Neil 1994; White 1963). Coastal groups may have visited more interior areas during harvest time or may have exchanged goods with more inland residents in order to acquire enough acorns for the community. Besides acorns, people utilized various seeds, greens, bulbs, roots, and fruits. This includes a wide variety of cacti and even edible reeds. The greens may have been an important springtime food, when other supplies were relatively scarce. Edible reeds could have provided a supplementary resource during times of food scarcity, such as late winter. Bean and Shipek (1978) believe seeds provided a large bulk of the nutritional needs of the people. They mention the use of grass seeds, manzanita, sunflower, sage, chia, lemonade berry, wild rose, holly-leaf cherry, prickly pear, lamb's-quarters, and pine nuts. The Luiseno hunted large and small terrestrial game, including black-tailed deer, pronghorn, jackrabbits, various birds, grasshoppers, and rodents. Deer were hunted with bow and arrow, captured in snares, or driven off cliffs (McCawley 1995). Smaller mammals, such as rabbits and rodents, were hunted with bow and arrows, throwing sticks, snares, traps, and draw nets. McCawley (1995), however, lists a series of animals that were not eaten by the Luiseno during pre-mission times. This list includes tree squirrels, wild pigeons or doves, dogs, coyotes, foxes, wolves, badgers, skunks, raccoons, wildcats, gophers, moles, eagles, buzzards, crows, hawks, owls, mockingbirds, lizards, snakes, rattlesnakes, turtles, tortoises, frogs, and toads. Fish and other marine animals played an important dietary role to the people living along the coast. Fishing equipment included bone and shell fishhooks, yucca fishing line, and detachable-point harpoons (McCawley 1995). In addition, coastal groups used dugout or rush 13 bundled canoes (Earie and O'Neil 1994; Harrington 1986; McCawley 1995). Such crafts would have given the coastal inhabitants access to offshore fishing grounds. In addition to fish, the coastal groups subsisted off of a wide variety of locally available shellfish, marine mammals, and crustaceans (Bean and Shipek 1978). 4.4 History First contact between Europeans and the Luiseno came in 1769 with the arrival of Caspar de Portola's expedition. The expedition was traveling between San Diego and Monterey in order to investigate possible mission sites (Rivers 1991). Mission San Juan Capistrano was established in 1776, the seventh of California's 21 missions. Mission San Luis Rey was founded 22 years later as the eighteenth mission (Rivers 1991). By 1830, the holdings of Mission San Luis Rey included San Onofre, Santa Margarita, San Marcos, Pala, Temecula, San Jacinto, Agua Caliente, and Las Flores (Brigandi 1982, revised 1995). Fifty Luiseino villages, each with a population of about 200 people (a total population of 10,000), are estimated to have been populated at the time of Spanish contact (White 1963). The mission records registered 3,683 Luiseno in 1828 (Bean and Shipek 1978), indicating a drastic decrease. Earie and O'Neil (1994) have recently recalculated population estimates based on mission sacramental register information, and they suggest this decline was not quite as great. Whatever the case, the Luisefio clearly suffered a catastrophic decline in population from introduced European diseases as well as living conditions under the mission system. The Native American populations under the jurisdiction of the San Luis Rey Mission, however, fared better than most California mission communities (Hornbeck 1983; Jackson 1994; Johnson 1998). The indigenous communities brought into the mission system were taught the Roman Catholic faith, Spanish language, farming skills, animal husbandry, adobe brickmaking, carpentry, and other European crafts (Bean and Shipek 1978). The policy at Mission San Luis Rey was to maintain the Luiseiio settlement pattern, and priests visited the villages to hold masses, perform marriages, and supervise agricultural activities. Although, for the most part, traditional economic methods continued as the basic subsistence mode and leadership 14 continued as it had always been, ethnohistoric data and new information indicate that a major cattle ranch operation was in place earlier than 1810 (Cagle et al. 1996). The policy at Mission San Luis Rey of less-direct or minimal interference was probably one of the reasons that the local communities in the area of California saw less-devastating population decreases than in other mission communities. The Luisenos social and political organization was drastically and forever changed by the policies of missionization (McCawley 1995, 1996). In 1834, the missions were secularized, resulting in political imbalance and Native American revolts and uprisings against the Mexican rancheros, who used the local populations as indentured labor. In theoty, this secularization was supposed to act as a transition from mission-controlled to Native American-controlled pueblos (McCawley 1996). This would allow the missions to continue developing new territories in more inland areas while leaving the "Christianized" Native Americans in charge of their original holdings. In reality, the secularization movement allowed self-aggrandizing individuals, mostly Mexican citizens, to control the wealth of vast amounts of lands. By 1845, Pio Pico, temporary governor of California and last governor of Mexican California, and his family acquired over 133,000 acres of land, including San Onofre, Santa Margarita, and Las Flores (Rivers 1991). At this time, many Luiserio left the missions and sought refuge among inland groups, while a few acquired land grants and entered into the mainstream Mexican culture. Several local pueblos were established for some of the San Luis Rey rancherias, among them Santa Margarita and Las Flores by the Mexican government. These pueblos were intended to be governmental units within the Mexican political system. Most, like Las Flores and Santa Margarita, disappeared under Mexican rancho rule. 5.0 FIELD METHODS The APE incorporates all of the proposed construction areas associated with the proposed Project. The Phase 1 pedestrian survey of proposed Project areas was conducted March 13, 2012 by Dudek Senior Archaeologist Ken Victorino, M.A., RPA, using3-meter (9.8-foot) meandering transect intervals. 15 Hoover/Lagoon Location At the northeast corner of the Hoover Street and Adams Street intersection, where the catch basin, concrete drainage ditch, concrete dike, and curb will be constructed, ground surface visibility was excellent (90 to 100 percent). This area has been disturbed by activities associated with installation of a fire hydrant and fire water line, installation of a wood power/utility pole, and construction of a storm drain and curb. Along Hoover Street where the CMP will be repaired with a cured-in-place liner, ground surface visibility was fair to good (10 to 90 percent). This area has been disturbed by activities associated with the installation of the existing CMP. Approximately 20 to 30 pieces of weathered shell, mainly Venus clam {Chione spp.) roughly 74- to y2-inch in size, were observed on the ground surface. No other prehistoric archaeological materials such as bone, chipped stone artifacts, or ground stone artifacts were identified. Examination of rodent holes and backdirt piles did not reveal any shell or darkened/discolored soil. Modern trash, including white ceramic tile, and imported gravel was observed on the ground surface in association with the shell. Ground surface visibility was fair (10 to 50 percent) in the undeveloped open space between Hoover Street and Agua Hedionda Lagoon, where CMP will be replaced with HDPE pipe and a storm drain cleanout, headwall, and riprap energy dissipater will be constructed,. This area has been disturbed by activities associated with the installation of the existing CMP. Silt fences and straw wattles have been installed to control erosion in this area, suggesting that this area has been previously graded. Approximately 10 pieces of weathered shell were observed on the ground surface. Again, no other prehistoric archaeological materials were identified. An approximately 3-foot high bank along the shore of the lagoon was examined. No prehistoric archaeological materials or darkened/discolored soils were identified. Highland/Adams Location The Highland/Adams location has been disturbed by activities associated with the installation of the existing CMP. The area north of Highland Drive where the concrete drainage ditch. ,16 catch basin, and concrete drainage swale will be constructed has been disturbed by activities associated with construction of a 3- to 4-foot high retaining wall. Areas where RCP will be installed and a storm drain cleanout constructed within Highland Drive and Adams Street has been disturbed by the installation of underground utilities. A storm drain cleanout and riprap energy dissipater will be constructed at the base of a gravel covered slope south of Adams Street. Based on the surrounding topography, this area appears to have been filled for the construction of Adams Street. This area has also been disturbed by erosion and scouring from the existing CMP outiet. No prehistoric archaeological materials were identified. 6.0 STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The intensive survey of the Project APE identified weathered, small shell fragments within the Hoover/Lagoon location. However, no other prehistoric archaeological materials such as chipped stone artifacts or ground stone artifacts were observed. Disturbances associated with installation of the existing CMP storm drain have most likely destroyed any intact archaeological materials. These observations are consistent with previous archaeological investigation conclusions. The shellfish fragments may be associated with the previously recorded archaeological site CA-SDI-18613. They are located within soils that have been disturbed as a result of installation of the existing CMP. The shellfish fragments therefore do not display integrity of location. The loss of this integrity compromises the ability of the sparse shell fragments to address criteria for eligibility for listing on the CRHR and NRHP. Specifically, the disturbed shellfish fragments: (A) Are not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Are not associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Do not embody 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) Have not yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 17 Given the reliable conditions characterizing the present intensive archaeological survey, no further investigations are needed to determine the potential existence of CRHR- or NRHP- eligible properties in the Project APE. 7.0 OTHER RESOURCES Unidentified Cultural Materials If previously unidentified archaeological materials are unearthed during construction, work should be halted in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. 18 8.0 REFERENCES ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2009. Results of Archaeological Testing at SDI-13701 and NAHI-S-1 for the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor Western Segment Realignment Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Unfiled draft. Bean, Lowell, and Florence Shipek 1978. Luiserio. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. Brian F. Mooney & Associates (Mooney) 1993. Archaeological Survey Report for a Portion of Adams Street Widening Project in the City of Carlsbad, California. Ms. on file, SCIC, San Diego State University. Brigandi, Phil 1982. A Brief History of Las Flores. Revised 1995. Bull, Charies S. 1987. A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 35-42. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1. Cagle, Chantal, C. Woodman, L. Haslouer, and B. Bowser 1996. Management Summary: CA-SDI-812/H, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California, Preliminary Results of Test Excavations and a Determination of NRHP Eligibility. Science Applications International Corporation. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Davis, E.L., CW. Brotii, and D.L. Weide. 1969. The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers 6. Earle, David and Stephen O'Neil 1994. An Ethnohistoric Analysis of Population, Settlement, and Social Organization in Coastal Orange County at the End ofthe Late Prehistoric Period. Keith Companies. Submitted to Coastal Community Builders, Newport Beach. Eriandson, Jon M. 1994. Early Hunter-Gatherers ofthe California Coast. New York: Plenum Press. 19 Ezell, Paul H. 1987. The Harris Site —An Atypical San Dieguito Site or Am I Beating a Dead Horse? In San Dieguito — La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper 1:15-22. Gallegos & Associates (Gallegos) 2003. Cultural Resource Survey and Test Program for the Carlsbad Sewer Line Project, Carlsbad, California. Ms. on file, SCIC, San Diego State University. Graham, William. 1981. A Cultural Resource Survey of the Laguna Mountain Recreation Area, San Diego County, California. ASM Affiliates Inc. Submitted to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cleveland National Forest, San Diego. Harrington, John P. 1986. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907- 1957, Vol. 3: Native American History, Language, and Culture of Southern California/Basin. White Plains: Kraus International Publications. 1933. Annotations. In Chinlgchlnlch: A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation, edited by P. Hanna. Santa Ana, California: Fine Arts Press. Hornbeck, D. 1983. California Patterns: A Geographical and Historical Atlas. Palo Alto: Mayfield Publishing. Jackson, R. 1994. Indian Population Decline: The Missions of Northwestern New Spain, 1687-1840. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Johnson, John 1998. The Ethnohistorical Basis for Cultural Affiliation in the Camp Pendleton Marine Base Area. Science Applications International Corporation. Submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Koerper, H. 1981. Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement In the Newport Bay Area and Environs, Orange County, California. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Riverside. 20 Kroeber, Alfred 1925. Handbook of the Indian of California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kowta, Makoto 1969. The Sayles Complex, A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in AnthropologyS:3S-&i. Berkeley, California McCawley, William 1996. From Rancheria to Rancho: The Ethnohlstory of Topamal - Rancho Santa Margarita, CA-SDI-10156/12599/H. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Bakersfield. 1995. Ethnohistoric Report. Results of Archaeological Significance Testing at Site CA- SDI-10156/SDI-12599/H MCAS Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California, Vol. 2. LSA Associates Inc. Submitted to the Department ofthe Navy, Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro. Moratto, M. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press. New York. Moriarty, James R. III. . 1967. Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego County, California. Science 155:553- 556. 1966. Cultural Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating at San Diego. Anthropological Journal of Canada 4:20-30 Reddy, Seetha, and Brian Byrd 1997. The Pendleton Coast District: An Ethnographic and Historical Background. In The Cultural Resources ofthe Pendleton Coast District. Ms. on file at SAIC, Santa Barbara, California. Rivers, Betty 1991. The Pendleton Coast District: An Ethnographic and Historical Background. In The Cultural Resources ofthe Pendleton Coast District. Ms. on file at SAIC, Santa Barbara, California. 21 Rogers, Malcolm J. 1945. An Outiine of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1(1): 167- 198. Shipek, Florence C. 1977. A Strategy for Change: The Luiseno of Southern California. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii. Sparkman, Philip S. 1908. 7776 Culture ofthe Luiseno Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Berkeley University Press. Vol. 8, No. 4,-pp. 187- 234. True, Delbert L. 1970. Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Monographs No. 1. University of California, Los Angeles. 1966. Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1958. An Eariy Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23:135-2^3 True D.L. and Eleanor Beemer. 1982. Two Milling Stone Inventories from Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4, pp. 233-261. Wallace, William 1978. Post-pieistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 BC. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp. 25-36. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230. Warren, Claude N. 1987. San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper No. 1, pp. 73-85 22 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in tfie Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3): 1-14. White, Raymond 1963. Luiseno Social Organization. University of California Press, Berkeley. 23