PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE SANTA YSABEL NATURE CENTER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

P REPARED FOR:

County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Contact: Margaret Diss, Adjunct Land Use Environmental Planner II 5500 Overland Avenue, Suite 410 San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 966‐1379

P REPARED BY:

ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Contact: J. Tait Elder MA, RPA (360) 920‐8959

December 2016 ICF. 2016. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel Nature Center, San Diego County, California. December. (ICF 00041.16.) San Diego, California. Prepared for County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation, San Diego, California. National Archaeological Database Information

Author(s): Tait Elder, MA, RPA

Timothy Yates, PhD

Nara Cox, BA

Karolina Chmiel, MA

Consulting Firm: ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 (858) 578‐8964

Client: San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation

Report Date: December 2016

Report Title: Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel Nature Center, San Diego County, California

Type of Study: Phase I Survey

New Sites: None

Updated Sites: P‐37‐024837; P‐37‐024838; P‐37‐024839; P‐37‐024840; P‐37‐030850; P‐37‐30208; and P‐37‐029089

USGS Quadrangle: Santa Ysabel, California: 7.5’ series (1:24,000); Warner’s Ranch, California: 7.5’ series (1:24,000)

Acreage: 105 acres; 83 acres surveyed

Keywords: Phase I Survey; CEQA Impact Assessment; Santa Ysabel, bedrock milling features, San Diego County Contents

List of Tables and Figures ...... iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... iv

Page

Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1‐1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1‐1 1.2 Existing Conditions ...... 1‐4 1.2.1 Environmental Setting ...... 1‐4 1.2.2 Records Search Results ...... 1‐20 1.3 Applicable Regulations ...... 1‐25 1.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act ...... 1‐25 1.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 1‐26 1.3.3 San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources ...... 1‐27 1.4 Guidelines for Determining Significance ...... 1‐27 1.4.1 National Register of Historic Places ...... 1‐27 1.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 1‐28 1.4.3 San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources ...... 1‐30 Research Design ...... 2‐1 2.1 Objectives ...... 2‐1 2.2 Expectations ...... 2‐1 Analysis of Project Effects ...... 3‐1 3.1 Methods ...... 3‐1 3.1.1 Historical Background Research ...... 3‐1 3.1.2 Survey Methods ...... 3‐1 3.1.3 Native American Participation and Consultation ...... 3‐6 3.2 Results ...... 3‐6 3.2.1 Pedestrian Survey ...... 3‐6 3.2.2 Shovel Probe Survey ...... 3‐7 3.2.3 Geotechnical Monitoring ...... 3‐8 Interpretation of Resource Importance and Impact Identification ...... 4‐1 4.1 Resource Importance ...... 4‐1 4.2 Impact Identification ...... 4‐2

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 i Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 Management Considerations— Mitigation Measures and Design sites ...... 5‐1 References ...... 6‐1 List of Preparers and Persons and Organizations Contacted ...... 7‐1 List of Mitigation Measures and Design Considerations ...... 8‐1 Appendix A Records Search Confirmation ...... 8‐1 Appendix B Native American Coordination ...... 8‐2 Appendix C Resource Location Map ...... 8‐3 Appendix D DPR 523 Site Record Forms ...... 8‐4 Appendix E Shovel Probe Data...... 8‐5 Appendix F 8‐6 Geotechnical Bore Monitoring Observations ...... 8‐6

APPENDICES Appendix A Records Search Confirmation Appendix B Native American Coordination Appendix E Shovel Probe Data Appendix F Geotechnical Bore Monitoring Observations

CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES Appendix C Confidential Figure ‐ Resource Location Map Appendix D Confidential DPR 523 Site Records Form

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 ii Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 Tables and Figures

Table Page Figure 1‐1. Regional Location Map 1‐2 Figure 1‐2. Study Area Vicinity 1‐3 Figure 3‐1. Survey Coverage 3‐4 Figure 4‐1. Potential Significance of Identified Cultural Resources within the Study Area 4‐1

Figure Page 1‐1 Regional Location Map ...... 1‐2 1‐2 Study Area Vicinity ...... 1‐3 1‐3 1899 Map Showing Features of Santa Ysabel Ranch in the Project Vicinity ...... 1‐19 1‐4 Late 1920’s Aerial Photograph that Includes Study Area ...... 1‐20 3‐1 Survey Coverage ...... 3‐4 3‐2 Cultural Resources (Confidential) ...... Appendix C

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 iii Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 Acronyms and Abbreviations

BP before present CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CRHR California Register of Historical Resources DPR Department of Parks and Recreation GPS Global Positioning System Local Register San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places RMP Resource Management Plan SCIC South Coastal Information Center SDC&E San Diego, Cuyamaca & Eastern Railroad SP Shovel Probe SR State Route USGS United States Geological Survey

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 iv Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 Executive Summary

This report presents the results of a Phase I cultural resources survey and inventory of the proposed location of the Santa Ysabel Nature Center, located on a 105‐acre parcel within the western portion of the Santa Ysabel Open Space Preserve. Project‐related ground disturbance associated with the nature center is anticipated to occur over a 9.5 acre area. The analysis presented in this report is intended to support the San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation’s (DPR) review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

DPR retained ICF to perform a Phase I cultural resources survey of the proposed location of the Santa Ysabel Nature Center, located on a parcel within the western portion of the Santa Ysabel Open Space Preserve. DPR proposes to construct a nature center and associated infrastructure on the parcel. The objective of the Phase I study was to relocate existing cultural resources and identify as‐ yet undocumented resources. To accomplish this objective, ICF cultural resources staff performed a records search, archival research, a sacred lands file search, a pedestrian survey, a shovel probe survey, and monitored geotechnical borings within the study area. This report summarizes the results of the cultural resources study and considers impacts and mitigation measures.

The pedestrian survey relocated three out of seven previously documented archaeological sites within the study area (P‐37‐030208, P‐37‐030850, and P‐37‐029089). No previously undocumented archaeological sites or isolates were identified within the study area during the pedestrian survey, shovel probe survey, or geotechnical monitoring; and none of the relocated archaeological sites are located within, or adjacent to, the proposed area of ground disturbance. In four instances (P‐37‐ 024837, P‐37‐024838, P‐37‐024839, and P‐37‐024840), archaeological sites were not relocated. In all four instances, the archaeological sites consisted of bedrock mortars. Based on the absence of exposed bedrock boulders at each of the locations, combined with the presence of several discrete piles of stacked boulders across the study area, it appears that modern agricultural use of the study area has displaced the contents of these archaeological sites.

Based on the result of the absence of archaeological sites in, or in the vicinity of, the areas of proposed ground disturbance within the study area; no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to cultural resources are anticipated to result from the project. Therefore, a finding of no adverse effects to historic properties is recommended under Section 106 of the NHPA and a finding of no significant impacts on historic resources is recommended under CEQA.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 Introduction

The County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) retained ICF to perform a Phase I cultural resources survey of the proposed location of the Santa Ysabel Nature Center, located on a parcel within the eastern portion of the Santa Ysabel Open Space Preserve. DPR proposes to construct a nature center and associated infrastructure on the parcel. The objective of the Phase I study was to relocate existing cultural resources and identify as‐yet undocumented resources. To accomplish this objective, ICF cultural resources staff performed a records search, archival research, a sacred lands file search, a pedestrian survey, a shovel probe survey, and monitored geotechnical borings within study area. This report summarizes the results of the cultural resources study and considers impacts and mitigation measures.

1.1 Project Description The cultural resources study area and project site consists of the 105‐acre parcel (assessor’s parcel number 2471601400) within the western portion of the preserve, located west of SR 79 and North of SR 78. DPR proposes to construct the Santa Ysabel Nature Center on this parcel in order to provide a regional nature education center that can showcase, capture, and promote stewardship of the unique environment of the Santa Ysabel Open Space Preserve (the project). The project’s construction elements would include the construction of a nature center building, a parking area, volunteer pad, access roads, installation of a septic system and groundwater well, and other outdoor amenities. The project must be carried out in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the project requires a Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit, which is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, it would also have to be carried out in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NRHP). DPR is currently managing the Preserve in accordance with an existing Resource Management Plan (RMP) and this cultural resources survey and inventory study will be used to update the existing RMP. This study will also be used to support the project’s CEQA obligations and possible NHPA, Section 106 requirements.

The study area is located in San Diego County near the unincorporated communities of Santa Ysabel and Julian, approximately 40 miles northeast of downtown San Diego. The proposed Santa Ysabel Nature Center would be located on a parcel within the western portion of the preserve, on the east side of SR 79. The project study area is within an unsectioned portion of Township 12 South Range 3 East within the historic Santa Ysabel Mexican Land Grant, and appears on the Santa Ysabel, California and Warner’s Ranch, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5‐minute series topographic maps (USGS 1988). Project‐related ground disturbance would occur within a 9.5 acre area within the parcel, an area hereafter referred to as the proposed area of ground disturbance. Nearby communities and noteworthy features include: the Santa Ysabel Asistencia immediately north on the east side of SR 79, the community of Santa Ysabel approximately 0.1 mile to the south; the community of Wynola approximately 1.9 miles to the southeast; the community of Julian approximately 5 miles to the southeast; and Inaja Memorial Park approximately 1.3 miles to the south. Figures 1‐1 and 1‐2 depict the study area.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐1 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 ST79 ST76 San Ysidro

Anza-Borrego Desert State Park

Study Area

ST78

S a n D i e g o C o u n t y

Ramona

67 ST Cleveland National Forest

ST79

Cuyamaca

Rancho San Bernardino ST67 StateLos Angeles Park

ST67 Riverside Orange ST67 Lakeside Alpine Winter P a c i f i c Imperial San Diego Gardens O c e a n ± 8 §8 ¦¨§ ¦¨ USA 0 Bostonia1 2 4 MEXICO Miles 54 Source:ST ESRI StreetMap El CajonNorth America (2015)

K:\San Diego\projects\County_Parks_&_Rec\00041_16_Santa_Ysabel_Nature Center\mapdoc\Cultural\Fig01_Regional_Vicinity.mxd Date: 9/22/2016 30136 Casa de Oro-Mount Helix

Figure 1-1 Regional Location Map Santa Ysabel Nature Center Projects ± 0 600 1,200 2,400

Feet

USGS 7.5' Quadrangles: Santa Ysabel and Warners Ranch Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed K:\San Diego\projects\County_Parks_&_Rec\00041_16_Santa_Ysabel_Nature Center\mapdoc\Cultural\Fig02_Project_Location.mxd Date: 9/22/2016 30136

Figure 1-2 Study Area Vicinty Santa Ysabel Nature Center Project County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

1.2 Existing Conditions 1.2.1 Environmental Setting

Natural Setting The central and western portions of the study area are situated on a flat to gently sloping valley bottom with occasional east‐to‐west trending shallow ephemeral drainages. The eastern portion of the study area consists of steep exposed granite slopes that feed into moderate to gently sloping alluvial fans to the west. Ranging from 2,950 to 3,400 feet above mean sea level, the study area lies within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province ‐ which is characterized by a series of north‐to‐ south trending mountain ranges that gradually slope west to the coastal plain and sharply slope east to the Salton Trough (Norris and Webb 1990). These ranges are primarily composed of uplifted granite, granodiorite, and quartz diorite. The valleys located between these ranges typically contain Quaternary alluvium (California Geological Survey 2010). Situated on a valley bottom, the study area is described as being comprised of alluvium at lower elevations and residuum at higher elevations; with abundant granite outcrops located along the eastern edge of the study area (Bownman 1973).

The study area is currently being used as pasture land. As a result, the onsite vegetation is primarily composed of nonnative grasses, with Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii) along the banks of Santa Ysabel Creek. The dominant grass species on‐site appears to be red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens) (SDNHM 2016)

Prehistorically, animal life around the study area included large to medium size mammal species such as grizzly bear (Ursus horribilis) and black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), badger (Taxidea taxus), ringtail (Bassariscus asutus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Numerous species of smaller size mammals were also present including jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and several species of mice and rats (Burt and Grossenheider 1976). Other animals included numerous predatory bird species such as red‐tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), and various amphibian and reptile species including a large variety of lizards and snakes as well as pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata) in the nearby Daney Canyon and San Vicente Creek drainages (Peterson 1961; Stebbins 1966).

Cultural Setting

Prehistoric Period The study area is located within the Southern California Coastal cultural region. Several cultural chronologies have been developed for the region (including, but not limited to Morrato 1984; Bull 1987; Warren 1987). The setting provided below synthesizes these chronologies into a brief discussion of regional cultural trends over time. This setting divides the precontact cultural sequence into three periods. These periods are analytical constructs and do not necessarily reflect Native American views.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐4 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

Paleoindian Period Traditionally, it was thought that the earliest human inhabitants of North America were highly mobile terrestrial hunters. Commonly referred‐to as the Clovis, these people used intricate bone and stone technology. On the west coast of North America, Clovis assemblages are characterized by a wide but sparse distribution of isolated tools and caches dated to between 12,800 and 12,500 years before present (BP) (Meltzer 2004). However, over the last few decades along the western coasts of North and South America, several archaeological sites and sets of human remains have been documented in island and mainland coastal contexts that date to the same period as the Clovis (i.e., Erlandson et al. 2007). These discoveries have forced researchers to reconsider how early humans migrated to the Americas and their land‐use strategies—with a greater emphasis placed on coastal environments.

In the south coastal region of California, the earliest evidence of human occupation has been found on the Channel Islands (Rick et al. 2005). For example, in addition to the set of human remains dated to around 13,000 years ago on Santa Rosa Island, an archaeological site dating to around 11,600 BP has been documented on San Miguel Island. The site contains numerous fish and shellfish remains, indicating an emphasis on marine resources (Rick et al. 2001). At least two archaeological sites along the mainland coast have been dated to prior to 10,000 BP, as well (i.e., Glassow et al. 2007). Although no assemblages dated to earlier than 10,000 BP have been documented along the San Diego shoreline, it is inferred that the absence of sites is largely a function of long term trends in sea level rise and shoreline erosion in the region. These trends are likely to have obscured and/or destroyed early coastal sites with datable materials.

Archaic Period Evidence of human occupation of the San Diego region begins to appear at around 10,000 BP in the form of lithic assemblages comprised of scrapers, scraper planes, cobble choppers, large blades, large projectile points, and crescentic stones thought to be associated with waterfowl hunting and processing (Davis et al. 1969; Warren 1967; Moss and Erlandson 2013). These items are attributed to a cultural complex locally referred‐to as the San Dieguito. Based on the range of artifact types, artifact frequency, and distribution of archaeological sites, the people that used the San Dieguito complex are thought to have used a generalized terrestrial hunting and gathering land‐use strategy (Davis et al. 1969).

Shortly thereafter, shell middens with millstone assemblages began to appear along sloughs and lagoons. Although this complex was originally considered to be a discrete cultural tradition—the La Jolla—several researchers have subsequently argued that La Jolla and Pauma (an inland lithic tradition indicative of inland resource collection and processing) complexes were created by the same group. The differences between the various complexes are thought to be a function of localized differences in the types of resources that were being collected and processed, rather than a difference in cultural affiliation (True 1958, 1980; True and Beemer 1982; Gallegos 1987). Interestingly, since the archaeological contents of early to middle Holocene‐aged coastal sites in the San Diego vicinity sites tend to differ from coastal sites located farther north, and include items typically associated with early Great Basin cultures (i.e. crescentic stones; Morrato 1984), researchers have argued that the Archaic period inhabitants of the San Diego region are descendants of groups that migrated out of the Great Basin region after the great Pleistocene lakes receded (i.e., Gallegos 1991).

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐5 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

After around 5,500 BP, the archaeological record appears to indicate that upland hunting and gathering—particularly acorn processing—intensified relative to aquatic resource collection. This is evidenced by an increase in the frequency of dart points, mortars, and pestles during the latter portion of the Archaic period. This transition is thought to indicate a notable shift in the land use and subsistence patterns of the precontact peoples of the San Diego region (Warren et al. 1998).

Late Prehistoric Period Starting at around 1,300 BP, the archaeological record reflects the emergence of two cultural traditions in the San Diego region. The range and spatial distribution of site types, as well as site constituents for both traditions, is thought to reflect the ethnographically observed lifeways of the Kumeyaay and Luiseño peoples (Morrato 1984). Although these two groups have clear linguistic and cultural distinctions, both appear to have designed their land‐use around the intensive exploitation of a range of upland resources and established permanent to semi‐permanent villages from the coast to the mountains and foothills. Both groups also adopted the use of small projectile points, pottery, and intensified use of acorns (True 1970).

Based on ethnographic data, the boundary between the lands of the Kumeyaay (to the south) and Luiseño (to the north) peoples occurred in the vicinity of Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon (Kroeber 1925). It is unknown, however, whether this boundary reflects a persistent spatial division between the two groups or the most recently recorded position of a boundary that fluctuated over time. Regardless, the study area is located within an area inhabited by the Kumeyaay. Archaeological sites attributed to the Kumeyaay are characterized by a range of artifact types referred‐to as the Cuyamaca complex. The complex includes small triangular pressure flaked projectile points, mortars and pestles, drilled stone ornaments, olivella beads, a steatite industry, ceramics, and urn cremations. In comparison, archaeological sites attributed to the Luiseño (termed the San Luis Rey complex) contain a similar range of artifact types, but tend to have lesser frequencies of side‐ notched projectile points, ceramics and ceramic forms, milling stones; and cremations tended to be ungathered (True 1970).

Ethnographic Background The study area was traditionally inhabited by the Kumeyaay people (referred‐to by the Spaniards as the Diegueño), who spoke the Ipai dialect of the Yuman language. The Kumeyaay inhabited a region that contained the southern San Diego County, west and central Imperial County, and the Northern Baja peninsula (Spier 1923; Almstedt 1982). The Kumeyaay spoke two distinct dialects. Speakers of the Ipai dialect traditionally lived north of the San Diego River, while speakers of the Tipai dialect traditionally lived south of the San Diego River (Langdon 1975; Hedges 1975).

The Kumeyaay practiced a patrilocal type (i.e., where married couples reside in the husband’s community) of organization with exogamy (i.e., marriage outside of one’s band) (Kroeber 1925). Individual bands are thought to have been associated with specific locales, villages, or Rancherias (Kroeber 1925; White 1963). The Kumeyaay used a wide range of environments for habitation and resource collection, including the coast, foothills, mountains, and desert (Almstedt 1982). In response to the wide‐ranging conditions from these environments, the Kumeyaay used a range of settlement strategies. For example, residential mobility was commonly practiced in desert environments where resources were sparse and widely distributed (Hicks 1963); whereas large seasonal residential bases were established in the mountains and foothills (Almstedt 1982). In keeping with the wide range of environments that they inhabited, the Kumeyaay exploited a range

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐6 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

of resources, including (but not limited to) terrestrial mammals, birds, fish, and marine invertebrates, grasses, manzanita, sage, sunflowers, lemonade berry, chia, mesquite, agave, and acorns. The latter (acorns) were particularly important because they were abundant and could be processed and stored for long periods (Hicks 1963).

The documentary record for ethnographically named places attributed to the Kumeyaay is limited, consisting of fewer than 60 named places (Luomala 1978). Review of the publically available literature reveals limited information about documented ethnographically named places in the study area vicinity, but several bands are known to have lived in and around the Santa Ysabel vicinity (Kroeber 1925), an area that was referred to as Ellykwanon by the Kumeyaay (Shipek 1982). Consultation with the affected tribes may result in the identification of as‐yet undocumented ethnographically named places.

Historic Period Starting in the late 1500s, the Spanish began to explore what is now San Diego County. This event marks the transition from the prehistoric period to the historic period. Many of the events that occurred during this period were recorded during Spanish, Mexican, and American rule, occupation, and land use of the region. An abbreviated history of the study area vicinity is presented to provide a background on the presence, chronological significance, and historical relationship of cultural resources within the study area.

Spanish Period The historic period in California began with the early explorations of Juan Cabrillo in 1542. Cabrillo came ashore on what is now Point Loma to claim the land for Spain and gave it the name San Miguel. Sixty years passed before another European, Sebastían Vizcaíno, entered the bay on November 10, 1602, and gave it the name San Diego (Pourade 1960:49, 66). Both expeditions encountered native inhabitants, but there appears to have been little or no material exchange or social interaction between these Spanish explorers and the region’s Native Americans.

The Spanish period lasted through the 1810s and encompassed early exploration and subsequent establishment of the Presidio of San Diego, as well as Missions San Diego, San Luis Rey, and San Juan Capistrano. The original Spanish settlement in San Diego began in 1769 on Presidio Hill and consisted of a presidio (fort) and a chapel that also served as Alta California’s first mission. In that same year, an expedition headed by Gaspar de Portolá traveled north from the presidio to extend the Spanish Empire by seeking out locations for a chain of presidios and missions along coastal Alta California. Documented by Father Juan Crespi, Portolá’s expedition marked the first time Spanish newcomers encountered the San Luis Rey and Santa Margarita Rivers. From the original outpost on what is now Presidio Hill, Mission San Diego de Alcalá was moved to roughly its current site in Mission Valley in 1774. In November of that year, Tipay warriors from south of the San Diego River attacked and razed the mission, killing Father Luis Jayme and two others. The San Diego mission was rebuilt in 1775. Although Mission San Diego proved one of the least successful missions in Alta California, it firmly established Spain’s presence in the region (Engelhardt 1920:60–64; Pourade 1960:137–38).

Expeditions from the mission into the backcountry of today’s San Diego County began in the 1870s. Military commander and eventual governor of Alta California, Pedro Fages, and his subordinate, Alférez José Velásquez, crossed the Cuyamaca Mountains several times during the 1870s and 80s.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐7 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

The first well‐documented Spanish exploration of the Santa Ysabel Preserve vicinity took place in 1795. That year, Father Juan Mariner and Captain Grijalva led a military scouting party north from the San Diego Presidio in search of an appropriate site for development of a new mission between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano. From Mission San Diego, Mariner and Grijalva took an inland route north following the San Diego River. Encountering numerous Native American villages, the party passed through Pamo Valley and continued northeast, where they came upon the valley that would later become Warner’s Ranch, which they named El Valle de San José. As reported in Mariner’s dairies, the party was impressed by the valley’s size, quality soil, and numerous springs, including the hot springs of Agua Caliente (today’s Warner’s Hot Springs). According to Mariner, the party agreed that the valley represented a suitable site for both a mission and an additional presidio. Mariner and Grijalva’s party subsequently turned westward, traveled through portions of San Luis Rey River valley, and continued north along the coast to San Juan Capistrano (Fetzer 2009:27–35; Hill 1927:28‐31; Pourade 1961:115). Mariner’s and Grijalva’s expedition informed the choice of the site for the next mission to be developed in present‐day San Diego County, Mission San Luis Rey, and also set the stage for subsequent colonization in the area of El Valle de San José.

Located approximately 40 miles west of the Preserve study area and 35 miles northwest of Mission San Diego, Mission San Luis Rey was founded by Father Fermín Francisco De Lausén and dedicated on June 13, 1798. Father Antonio Peyri husbanded construction of the church and quadrangle. Completed in 1801–1802, the mission church was constructed of adobe bricks made and placed by neophytes among the region’s indigenous Luiseño population, upon whom the mission’s Christianization efforts focused. With San Luis Rey serving as the center of Spanish authority in the northern San Diego region, two asistencias (mission extensions) were established during subsequent decades, one at San Antonio de Pala on the upper San Luis Rey River in 1810, and the other at Las Flores on the coast north of Oceanside in 1822 (Pourade 1961:117, 122).

In 1816, the San Diego Mission fathers requested financial support from colonial officials to establish an asistencia to facilitate economic development and religious conversion of the large Native American population in and around El Valle de San José. They chose the native village of Ecuanan in a valley south of El Valle de San José as the site of the new missionary outpost, which was developed slightly north and east of the study area’s northeast corner. There, in September 1818, Father Fernando Martin founded the Santa Ysabel asistencia. Although Santa Ysabel did not get a resident priest—which could have raised its status from asistencia to mission—San Diego Mission fathers succeeded in baptizing hundreds of Native Americans there. By the early 1820s, the Santa Ysabel asistencia consisted of a chapel, a granary, and several houses, and it claimed a baptized local Native American population estimated at as high as 600 (Engelhardt 1920:167–69; Quinn 1964:6–7; Weber 1975:66).

Despite such successes, and the growing wealth accumulated by the missions, Spanish authorities maintained an ultimately tenuous grip on Alta California. The Santa Ysabel Asistencia was established during a consequential period of political instability and historical transition in California. While missions such as San Luis Rey and asistencias such as Santa Ysabel flourished economically, the stability of Spain’s colonization project in Alta California had been gradually undermined both by internal institutional instability and by foreign intrusions and threats. Ravaged by European diseases, indigenous people had endured physical abuse and overwork as neophyte converts within the authoritarian mission system. While native acculturation to the Spanish missionary project varied, instances of native resistance had accumulated across Alta California. Mariners and other newcomers, some with allegiances to competing colonial powers, had also begun

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐8 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

to undermine the authority of local officials and mission priests, whose problems were of little interest to a Spanish government preoccupied with European conflicts and Spain’s decline as a major world power (Pourade 1961:83–86; Bean and Rawls 2003:48–52, 54–56).

Mexican Period The Mexican period began in 1821, when Mexico won independence from the decaying Spanish colonial empire, and lasted until 1848, when the Mexican‐American War concluded. Throughout the 1820s, Spanish laws and practices largely endured; substantial change did not occur until the secularization of Missions San Luis Rey, Mission San Juan Capistrano, and Mission San Diego de Alcalá in the 1830s. During the Mexican Period, many Presidio soldiers became civilian residents, the Pueblo of San Diego took shape, and transportation routes were expanded. The region’s economic activity centered on agriculture and livestock‐raising for subsistence and localized markets, and hide and tallow production for the international market (Pourade 1961:171,182–186; Pourade 1963:11–16; Sherman 2001:230).

The Santa Ysabel Preserve vicinity became a part of an important Euro‐American travel corridor in Southern California beginning in the 1820s. While in pursuit of horse thieves in 1824, Santiago Argüello discovered what would become known as Warner’s Pass. The main southerly route into California from northern Sonora had been established in 1775 as a result of the first expedition led by Juan Batista de Anza. Running well east of the Preserve vicinity, Anza’s trail crossed the Borrego Desert, passed through Coyote Canyon, extended across the Anza Valley, and then continued northwest following Bautista Canyon and Bautista Creek into the Hemet Valley. The alternative route pioneered by Argüello bypassed the Borrego Badlands and veered west from the Anza trail to pass through the Carrizo Corridor to Vallecitos, and continued northwest through San Felipe Valley into El Valle de San José (San José Valley). The San José Valley became an important crossroads when, after ordering an engineer to investigate Argüello’s route, the Mexican government designated it the official mail route between Sonora and San Diego. Soon both immigrants from Sonora and Anglo‐American fur trappers from the United States were traveling the route into today’s San Diego County (which later became a segment of the Gila Trail). Near what would become Warner’s Ranch, the trail branched north and south, with the northern branch extending to Los Angeles, and the southern branch passing the through the Santa Ysabel Valley and continuing south to San Diego (Bean and Rawls 2003:40–41; Pourade 1961:173–74; Quinn 1964:17).

After years of political instability and several failed plans to secularize the missions, in 1834 Governor José Figueroa issued a proclamation defining the terms of a secularization process that would be instituted over the following two years. Some large grants of land were made prior to the secularization of mission lands, but those following secularization redistributed the missions’ large grazing holdings, making numerous tracts available to well‐positioned members of the Hispanic Californio and ushering in the Rancho Era. Provisions for assuring that Native Americans would receive mission lands proved of little or no practical benefit to the region’s indigenous peoples. Limits on the slaughter of mission cattle were often ignored by priests who sought immediate profit on the hide market. Governors distributed former Mission lands mainly to politically connected officials and retired soldiers. Approximately 500 private rancho land grants were made under Mexican rule. Governors Juan Batista Alvarado, Manuel Micheltorena, and Pío Pico made most of these grants after the 1834 secularization proclamation (Bean and Rawls 2003:58–63).

In 1844 Governor Micheltorena granted the 17,719‐acre Santa Ysabel Rancho—composed of secularized Santa Ysabel asistencia lands—to English merchant ship captain Edward F. Stokes and

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐9 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

his father‐in‐law, José Joaquín Ortega, former administrator of the secularized San Diego Mission. The grant came with the contingency that Stokes and Ortega “leave free the lands actually occupied by the natives” and “leave for the benefit of the Mission [asistencia] and 150 cows which Ortega will give the community of Indians.” Stokes and Ortega grazed large herds of cattle there while also operating the 17,708‐acre Santa María Rancho in the Valle de Pamo (today’s Ramona) approximately 8 miles to the southwest, which they had been granted in 1843. The Preserve study area is located within the boundaries of the Santa Ysabel Rancho. To the north, rancho lands in the San José Valley were granted to Silvestre de la Portilla in 1836, and to José Antonio Pico, brother of Pío Pico, in 1840. The latter grant included the Agua Caliente springs. Conflicts with native groups in the area led Portilla and Pico to abandon these grants. In 1844 John Trumbull Warner, a Yankee immigrant who became a Mexican citizen, applied for and received a consolidated 44,322‐acre grant comprising the former Portilla and Pico grants. Known as “Juan Largo” (Long John), Warner constructed an adobe and a trading post 4 miles south of Agua Caliente and allowed the area’s Native Americans to continue occupying the hot springs (Moyer 1969:56; Pourade 1963:64; Wade et al. 2009:66 quoted).

After the secularization of the missions, economic necessity or coercion forced many among the region’s Native American population to work on Mexican ranchos such as Warner’s and Stokes’ and Ortega’s. Indigenous peoples living farther from rancho lands maintained their traditional ways of life for a longer period of time. As the ranchos multiplied and spread inland more and more indigenous groups were forced to acculturate or move east, farther into the backcountry. In several instances, however, former mission neophytes organized pueblos and attempted to live within Mexican law and society. The most successful of these was the Pueblo of San Pasqual, founded by Kumeyaay who were no longer able to live at the Mission San Diego de Alcalá. This period, however, saw the continued exploitation of native labor, now on ranchos whose grazing lands comprised their former territories and whose economic production benefited the Hispanic Californio population of rancheros and Euro‐American newcomers to the region almost exclusively. Although no organized violent resistance took shape, raids on ranchos by Native American groups taking advantage of Mexican military weakness in Alta California were frequent enough to produce widespread anxiety in the San Diego region. While many acculturated Native Americans ensconced within the rancho economy lived similarly to European free peasants, a greater number resisted acculturation and instead opted to inhabit traditional villages and limit their contact with Mexican society (Farris 1994; Carrico 2008:41–43).

With the outbreak of the Mexican‐American War, both Euro‐Americans and Native Americans living in the northern San Diego region confronted the options of aligning with Mexican or American forces, or attempting to negotiate a neutral position. After making an exceptionally lengthy march west, General Stephen Watts Kearny’s Army of the West reached Santa Ysabel on December 4, 1846. There, native Iipai leaders fed Kearny’s men and offered military support, but Kearny urged them to remain neutral. By the time Kearny arrived at Santa Ysabel, John Warner, a longtime friend of Governor Pico but also a well‐known advocate of American occupation, had been arrested and imprisoned by the head of American forces in San Diego, Lieutenant Archibald Gillespie (Warner was subsequently released and exonerated). In Warner’s absence, Kearny engaged Santa Ysabel Ranch‐owner Edward Stokes, a neutral, to deliver a request for reinforcements to Commodore Robert F. Stockton in San Diego. Mexican forces camped at the San Pasqual Rancheria and led by Andres Pico clashed with Kearny’s American forces at the Battle of San Pasqual on December 6, where Kearny’s contingent suffered 21 losses compared to a single death among Californio forces (Carrico 2008:44; Morrison 1962:23; Moyer 1969:12; Pourade 1963:92, 101; Sherman 2001:29).

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐10 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

After the battle, a number of Californio fighters took refuge at José Antonio Serano’s Pauma Rancho. Luiseños led by Manuel Cota and Pablo Apis, Jr. raided the rancho and took 12 of the Californios captive. Cota and Apis marched the captives to Agua Caliente and put them on display to Cupeño and Cahuilla who had gathered at the springs. There, Cota had the 11 captured Californios executed, possibly as an act intended to curry favor with Kearny’s forces, but also possibly as retaliation for previous Luiseño deaths at the hands of Californios. In response to the killings, Mexican commander José María Flores enlisted San Bernardino rancho‐owner José del Carmen Lugo to capture Cota’s raiders. A force of Californios and Cahuilla warriors headed by Lugo and Cahuilla leader Juan Antonio Cusuhatná captured a group of 28 Luiseños near Aguanga. In a final act of violence associated with the Battle of San Pasqual that occurred in Lugo’s absence, Cusuhatná ordered the massacre of the captured Luiseños. As historian Richard Carrico has explained, “the Mexican‐ American War and the aftermath of the Battle of San Pasqual served to intensify existing animosities and served as a backdrop for further violence” during the first decades of the American Period (Carrico 2008:45; Moyer 1969:61, 63, 64).

American Period Mexico’s defeat in the Mexican‐American War in 1848 initiated the American period, and Mexico ceded California to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. As a consequence, the property ownership among Californios granted lands under Mexican rule became a matter of considerable legal wrangling. In principle, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo protected the Californio property. In practice, however, the legal process for vetting land claims set into motion by the Land Commission established by the Act of 1851, combined with the mounting debts of many rancho owners, allowed most rancho lands to be acquired by American newcomers over time. As a consequence of legal costs and a lack of what Americans considered sufficient evidence to substantiate title claims, few Mexican ranchos remained intact, and much of the land that once constituted rancho holdings became public land available for settlement by newcomers to California (Bean and Rawls 2003:145–147).

Stokes and Ortega continued to own and run the Santa Ysabel Rancho for several decades after the war, and native Iipay continued to reside there in accordance with the original 1844 land grant. Writing in 1849, Lieutenant Cave Couts described Santa Ysabel as an “Indian rancho” where “the natives are far ahead of the common rancheros of the county. They have an abundance of chickens, eggs, melons, grapes, pears, etc. They are well dressed (some even dandily)” (Wade et al. 2009:66).

Tensions between Native Americans and Anglo‐American newcomers in San Diego County erupted in violence soon after California achieved statehood in 1850. Delays in the arrival of federal Indian agents to California, and San Diego Sheriff Agoston Haraszthy’s attempt to tax local Christianized Native Americans while insisting that they lacked citizenship rights, led to the Gara uprising of 1851. In November of that year, Antonio Gara led members of the Agua Caliente village in an assault against Americans, including John Warner, who survived but never again resided on his ranch. In retaliation, Americans burned several Luiseño and Cupeño villages, and Gara was executed in San Diego (Carrico 2008:58–60, 900).

Indian agent Oliver M. Wozencraft reached San Diego by the end of 1851, and in January 1852 he completed the Treaty of Santa Ysabel with Northern Diegueño and Kumeyaay peoples, including Santa Ysabel’s Iipay, who were led by Tomás (Chihu). However, the federal government rejected the Santa Ysabel Treaty along with 17 others negotiated by Wozencraft and other agents in California. Leaving the issue of Native American land claims unsettled, the government then initiated a policy of

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐11 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

assigning tribes federal agents. Cave Counts was appointed San Diego County’s Indian agent in 1853 and received instructions to “protect the Indians in their rights, against impious white men. Settle all disputes amongst themselves; advise the Indians, encourage them to labor and provide for the maintenance of their families” (Carrico 2008:90–94, 95 quoted, 97).

For two decades, the region’s Native American population struggled against federal neglect, increasing racism, and encroachment by Anglo‐American settlers. Areas traditionally used for hunting and gathering by Native Americans in northern San Diego County were fenced for ranches and farms, and squatters increasingly attempted to occupy native lands. As early as 1856, then former Santa Ysabel leader, Tomás, told a federal official that his people were going hungry and losing their ancient lands to white settlers as a result of federal neglect. Appointed alcalde of the Mesa Grande district in 1854, which included Santa Ysabel, San Pasqual’s Panto was unable to stem the tide of Anglo‐American racial hostility, violence, and encroachment. By the time the federal government formally reserved lands for the region’s Native Americans, northern San Diego County’s best lands had been acquired or occupied by nonnatives. Located within 2 miles north, northeast, northwest, and west of the Preserve study area, the Santa Ysabel and Mesa Grande Reservations were created by executive order in 1875 along with seven others in San Diego County (Carrico 2008:96–112, 142–43).

Many Anglo‐American and other newcomers to the Preserve vicinity came to the area with the Julian gold rush. Located approximately 5 miles southeast of the Preserve study area, Julian took shape as a consequence of the region’s first gold discovery in late 1869 or January 1870 by Fredrick (Fred) Coleman, a former slave from Kentucky who became a member of the local Native American community by marriage. News of Coleman’s discovery spread quickly. Brothers Michael and Alfred Webb Julian came to the area with their cousins, Drury, James, and Frank Bailey, all miners. A small hill rising from land homesteaded by Drury Baily became the Julian town site. A toll road paralleling today’s Highway 78 was constructed from Santa Ysabel to the town site, which Drury Baily hired John McIntire to plat in April. A census recorder arrived in July and documented the names of 534 Julian residents. Sawmills were quickly established to provide lumber for building. By 1872 Julian had evolved from a mining boomtown to permanent settlement with 50 homes, three hotels, four stores, two restaurants, a schoolhouse, and several saloons. Gold fever abated within several years, and Julian’s population had declined to approximately 100 by 1876. However, gold mining around Julian and Banner to the east continued into the 1890s. During the following decade, mining in the Mesa Grande area northwest of the Preserve study area also yielded notable gem deposits of tourmaline, kunzite, beryl, topaz, and quartz. Ultimately, however, agriculture rather than mining sustained the town of Julian, which earned a reputation for orchards producing high quality apples. As historian Leland Fetzer explains, Julian evolved into “a vital center for the northern Cuyamacas, their desert approaches, Banner City, Volcan Mountain, Santa Ysabel, and Mesa Grande” (Fetzer 2009:75–80, 90–91 [quoted], 113–14; Pourade 1964: 53–63, 142, 149‐50, 152, 231; Pourade 1965:53–55).

In addition to mining and crop and orchard cultivation, ranching persisted as one of the leading land uses in the Preserve vicinity, despite a variety of factors that made it a volatile enterprise. After the Mexican‐American War, California experienced a cattle boom driven by demand for meat among gold rush miners and other newcomers. During the second half of the 1850s, however, stock driven into California from other southwestern states reduced cattle prices. Apart from the rainy winter of 1861–1862, Southern California suffered a decade of drought that devastated herds, contributed to indebtedness and land loss among many Californio rancho owners, and led many stock‐raisers in the

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐12 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

parched lowlands to drive herds into the wetter San Diego Mountains. During this period, cattle grazed by L. J. Yager (also recorded as Jager or Iager) in and around Rancho Santa Ysabel supplied the military at Fort Yuma. With the Civil War’s disruption of the international wool market, sheep raising flourished in San Diego County and elsewhere in California. By 1880, the number of sheep in San Diego County had far surpassed the number of cattle. Outbreaks of disease among cattle and sheep during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries contributed to the economic risks of ranching. By the early twentieth century, however, improvements in disease control, pumping technology, and irrigation all helped to revive and stabilize the Southern California cattle industry. Led by the ranching empire created by George Sawday, the revived cattle industry grew into one of the leading elements of the San Diego County agricultural economy during the first half of the twentieth century (Wade et al. 2009:13–14, 16–23, 26–32, 67).

While cattle raised for beef production were grazed at the Santa Ysabel Rancho, the property also became a center of diary production beginning in the late nineteenth century. In 1885 the ranch was purchased by a group of absentee owners from Sonoma County who brought in dairy cattle and established multiple dairy facilities on the property. The owners hired Swiss‐Italians associated with the thriving immigrant dairying community in Sonoma County to run the ranch’s dairying operations, which set the stage for generations of Swiss‐Italian immigrants to settle in the Santa Ysabel Valley (Wade et al. 2009:68–70).

The Sonoma County purchasers of the ranch undertook several building projects in the 1880s. They built the ranch house and main dairy complex to the north of the Preserve study area, where the main road through the valley meets Mesa Grande Road. They also constructed a store and post office building approximately 0.75 mile south of the study area that remains present at the south side of the junction where the historic roads to Julian, Warner’s Ranch, and Ramona converge (today’s Highways 78 and 79) (Wade et al. 2009:69).

Although the old adobe chapel at the site of the Santa Ysabel Asistencia had begun to deteriorate during the 1830s and eventually disintegrated, throughout the nineteenth century Iapay and other Kumeyaay in the region continued to worship at the site, and priests continued to travel there to conduct Catholic services. During the early nineteenth century, Santa Ysabel’s Native American neophytes purchased two eighteenth‐century bells fabricated in Mexico in exchange for six loads of barley and wheat. The inscriptions on the bells read: N.S. De Loreto 1729 (Our Lady of Loreto 1729) and SAN PEDRO 1767 (Saint Peter 1767). The bells hung on a simple wood crossbar adjacent to the traditional native structure that replaced the adobe chapel along the main road through the valley, which was subsequently replaced by a wood‐framed structure. The asistencia also served as the site of the annual Fiesta de las Cruces, a celebration attended by Native Americans from across the region (Brackett 1960:45; Quinn 1964:15).

After the turn of the century, Father Edmund La Pointe, the first resident priest to serve the northern San Diego County high country, came to the region and began a nearly 30‐year tenure there, during which he transformed the Santa Ysabel Asistencia site. Hailing from Quebec, La Pointe arrived in 1903, the year native Cupeños were forcibly relocated from Warner’s Ranch to the Pala Reservation. La Pointe arranged construction of a chapel overlooking the San José Valley for the Los Coyote’s Reservation. During the 1910s, he convinced Colonel Ed Fletcher, then manager of Warner’s Ranch and subsequent developer of the Henshaw Dam and Reservoir, to grant Native Americans access to one of the sacred Agua Caliente hot springs, and to construct a new chapel there for native worshipers. Using $60,000 inherited from his parents in 1912, Father La Pointe also had a new chapel constructed at the site of the original Santa Ysabel Asistencia chapel. Dedicated in

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐13 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

1924, the chapel stands today as part of a complex that came to include an auditorium, rectory, and grotto (Quinn 1964:24, 29; Los Angeles Times 1932:A8).

Tensions flared between local Iipay and Santa Ysabel Ranch owners during and after construction of the new chapel. Native Americans residing at the Volcan Mountain portion of the Santa Ysabel Reservation found their lands inadequate for their grazing needs, and had for years driven cattle to the east side of the valley floor to feed. Iipay cattlemen claimed rights to this grazing area reaching back to the mission era. During the early 1920s, Santa Ysabel Ranch owners—who had tolerated the grazing by Volcan Mountain herds on the east side of the valley for decades—began demanding some kind of financial remuneration for the practice. Iapay cattlemen refused. The ranch owners began impounding cattle found in the disputed grazing area and claimed property rights to it under U.S. law. They also threatened to remove the new chapel and confiscate the eighteenth‐century asistencia bells. In December 1925, the Volcan Mountain Kumeyaay responded by filing a lawsuit against Santa Ysabel Ranch owners in the U.S. District Court. As the Los Angeles Times reported, in the suit the Volcan Mountain Iipay demanded “to regain possession of asserted tribal lands . . . and to obtain $50,000 damages for trespass” (San Diego Union 1925:5; Los Angeles Times 1923: II20; 1925:A6).

Despite legal resolution of the conflict, lingering distrust appears to be responsible for the mysterious disappearance of the Santa Ysabel Asistencia bells. In June 1926, the U.S. Congress appropriated $25,000 to purchase the disputed grazing land from the ranch owners and add it to the Volcan Mountain portion of the Santa Ysabel Reservation. At one point, somebody fired a gun at and pierced a hole in one of the asistencia bells. In November 1926, the old asistencia bells were stolen. A group of Iipay reported the theft to law enforcement officials in Ramona and estimated the bells’ combined value at $20,000. For years, Native American and Euro‐American residents blamed each other for perpetrating the theft. During the morning following the theft, Iapay Santa Ysabel resident Jose Maria Osuna found the clappers (bell ringers) laying on the ground at the chapel site and secretly hid them. Members of Osuna’s family returned the clappers to priests at the Santa Ysabel chapel complex in the late 1950s. The bells, however, have never been returned. Father La Pointe died in 1932 and was buried at the chapel complex (Quinn 1964:15–16; Los Angeles Times 1932:A8; Santa Ana Register 1926:2; U.S. Department of the Interior 1926:30).

Despite the conflict of the 1920s and ongoing ethnic tensions, the Iipay coexisted with Euro‐ American residents of the valley throughout the twentieth century. The chapel complex made possible by Father La Pointe’s inheritance has endured, and today the Santa Ysabel Asistencia site is California Historical Landmark No. 369. Santa Ysabel Ranch owners’ dairying and other cattle‐ related operations also endured and employed local Iipay. With the dramatic increase of automobile travel during the 1920s, and the explosion of development and urbanization that occurred in Southern California after World War II, the region encompassing the Santa Ysabel Valley, Warner’s Ranch and Agua Caliente, and Julian become increasingly important as a scenic and historically rich Southern California recreational destination. The Santa Ysabel Valley had accommodated San Diego County’s major travel corridor for much of the nineteenth century. But after the coming of the railroad and the rise of automobile travel, the valley became distinctive in part for its remoteness from major Southern California freeways and other forms of twentieth‐century urban development.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐14 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

Historical Overview of the Preserve Property

Travel Corridors The Santa Ysabel Valley, and therefore portions of the study area, have served as travel corridors beginning in the prehistoric period and continuing well into the twentieth century. During the late 1820s, after Santiago Argüello identified the pass through San Felipe Canyon that would become known as Warner’s Pass, a new segment of the Gila Trail (or the Sonora Road) was established between the Borrego Desert and Los Angeles via the San José Valley (later Warner’s Ranch). The Mexican government designated this new trail as the official mail route. The main road from the Gila Trail to San Diego branched south in the San José Valley, continued south through the Santa Ysabel Valley passing the asistencia site, turned west near today’s intersection of Highways 78 and 79, and continued westward through the Santa Maria or Pamo Valley (today’s Ramona), before again turning southward. During the 1820s and 1830s, immigrants from Sonora and trappers such as Jedediah Smith made use of the trail through the Preserve vicinity and the Santa Ysabel Valley (Fetzer 2009:40–41; Pourade 1961:173‐74; Quinn 1964:17).

During and after the Mexican‐American War, travelers established more rugged secondary trails over the mountains between the desert portion of the Gila Trail and San Diego. One of these ran through the immediate Preserve vicinity and cut two days from the route through the San José Valley. Not passable by wagon, this horse or mule trail followed San Felipe Creek toward Banner, turned westward and ran north of Julian, and then followed Santa Ysabel Creek into the valley just south of the asistencia site (Fetzer 2009:51).

The Mexican‐American War reinforced the importance of the travel route from the desert to the San José Valley via Warner’s Pass at San Felipe Canyon, along with the road between San Diego and the San José Valley via the Santa Ysabel Valley. In addition to Kearny’s Army of the West, General George Cook’s Mormon Battalion traveled the route to the San José Valley and on to Temecula before turning south and then following the San Luis Rey River west to the Mission San Luis Rey. Although the Mormon Battalion did not pass through the Santa Ysabel Valley when it marched to San Diego during the Mexican‐American War, part of its mission was to widen and level what became known as the Gila Trail to accommodate horse‐drawn wagons in anticipation of the mass migration that would be a consequence of American victory. After the war’s end, thousands of Americans would make use of this trail on route to California, and during the remainder of the century, hundreds of thousands of cattle would be driven along the Gila Trail into Southern California and to grazing destinations in San Diego County (Pourade 1963:25–26; Quinn 1964:19; Wade et al. 2009:14–16).

During the 1850s, there were several short‐lived attempts to establish overland mail routes and service between San Diego and the East along trails through the Cuyamaca Mountains south of the Santa Ysabel and San José Valleys. In 1857, the federal government awarded the coveted overland mail contract for California service to John Butterfield and the Butterfield Stage Line, which stymied hopes for a direct line to San Diego. The Butterfield Stage followed the old Gila Trail (or Sonora Road) east to Warner’s Ranch in the San José Valley and continued on to Temecula and Los Angeles. Mail was transported from the Butterfield Station at Warner’s Ranch south through the Santa Ysabel Valley to San Diego. With the outbreak of the Civil War the Butterfield service into Southern California ended altogether, and its stages began to run between Salt Lake City and Central California (Fetzer 2009:58–62; Pourade 1963:218–230, 246).

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐15 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

In nineteenth century terms, traffic through the Santa Ysabel Valley continued to be busy following the Civil War and through the 1870s. Prior to the 1870s, residents living an area that stretched from the Santa Maria Valley (today’s Ramona) to Warner’s Ranch had to travel to Santa Ysabel to vote. The Julian gold rush of the early 1870s dramatically increased traffic through the valley. Replacing the trail that followed Santa Ysabel Creek between the asistencia and the Julian area, a new a toll approximating today’s Highway 78 was constructed from the valley to Julian. The Coleman Grade portion of this toll road was named for Fred Coleman, whose gold discovery occasioned the creation of Julian and who appears to have worked on the road’s construction. By the 1870s, San Diego was receiving its mail by steamship, and in1871 Chester Gunn began transporting mail on horseback between the harbor docks and Julian using various old trails and the eastern portion of the road between the Santa Maria and Santa Ysabel Valleys. The following year, Adolph and Edward Stokes won the mail contract and began running a second stage service between San Diego and Julian to compete with William Tweed’s earlier‐established service. Both stage services ran through Santa Ysabel (Fetzer 2009:79; LeMenager 1989:62–63, 1992:96–97).

More direct north‐south‐aligned routes between San Diego and the road linking the Santa Maria Valley, the Santa Isabel Valley, and Julian were also developed beginning in the early 1870s. Brothers Lemuel and Henry Atkinson completed the Atkinson Toll Road in 1873, which was subsequently acquired by the County of San Diego. This road was replaced by the Mussey Grade Road in 1888, which served as the county’s main route between San Diego and Ramona for the next 50 years until Highway 67 replaced it. Finally, in 1889 the San Diego, Cuyamaca & Eastern Railroad (SDC&E) was completed between San Diego and Foster. Hopes that the railroad would be extended to Ramona and Santa Ysabel, however, failed to materialize after the line failed to generate expected profits. Joseph Foster and Frank Frary ran stages up and down Mussey Grade between Foster and Julian via Ramona and Santa Ysabel. The railroad and Foster’s and Frary’s stage and hauling service reduced the trip from Ramona to San Diego to a single day (Le Menager 1989:67–68, 101–05).

By the time the SDC&E and better roads had succeeded in improving travel from San Diego north to Ramona, Santa Ysabel, and Julian, the main road through the Santa Ysabel Valley was no longer part of San Diego’s principal transcontinental travel corridor. During the first half of the 1880s, the construction of the California Southern Railroad (later integrated into the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway system) on an alignment over 35 miles west of Santa Ysabel provided San Diego County with its first transcontinental railroad connection (Pourade 1964:155–66). For a time, the Gila Trail continued to serve as a cattle driving route into the mountains of northeastern San Diego County, and the road south from Warner’s Ranch through Santa Ysabel and on to Ramona continued to function as one of the county’s important interior travel arteries. However, by the end of the 1880s they no longer served as the county’s main links to Los Angeles and Arizona.

After the turn of the century, the rise of automobile travel led to new road improvements in the Preserve vicinity. In 1909 the San Diego County Board of Supervisors created a County Road Commission, and voters approved a $1,250,000 bond issue for road grading and graveling. Roads improved for automobile travel included the route between Ramona and Julian through Santa Ysabel, and between Santa Ysabel and Warner’s Ranch. Voter’s approved another $2,300,000 in 1919 for county road improvements (Pourade 1965:111, 236). Over the course of the early twentieth century, the roads in the Preserve vicinity between Warner’s Ranch and Santa Ysabel (today’s Highway 79) and between Ramona and Julian via Santa Ysabel (today’s Highway 79) were paved. However, the development of major highways to the south that connected San Diego with Imperial County, and highways to the west that connected San Diego to Orange and Los Angeles

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐16 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

Counties, increasingly left the improved automobile arteries in the Preserve vicinity to local traffic and recreational travelers.

Land Use Granted the Santa Ysabel Rancho in 1844, José Joaquin Ortega and Edward F. Stokes managed it in conjunction with their Santa Maria Ranch to the west. Lieutenant Cave Couts described the rancho in 1849: “Santa Ysabel is a fine valley, large, fertile, elegantly watered, excellent grazing and well wooded property of Joaquin Ortega. It is an Indian rancho and the natives are far ahead of the common rancheros of the county. They have an abundance of chickens, eggs, melons, grapes, pears, etc. They are well dressed (some even dandily), and their Captain General (old Tomas Chihu) is our guide” (Wade et al. 2009:66, quoting Rush 1965:56–57). After the death of Stokes, whose heirs became more exclusively associated with the Santa Maria Rancho, Ortega and his family, including a widowed daughter with three young sons, continued to reside at Santa Ysabel. Like many other Californio rancho owners, the Ortegas experienced financial difficulties under the changing economic and legal conditions of American rule. After mortgaging the property, they eventually found it necessary to sell the rancho in order pay off the mortgage debt (San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation [County DPR] and Julian Historical Society 2006:4–5).

Susan McKinstry, wife of Major Justus McKinstry, acquired the Santa Ysabel Rancho from the Ortegas in 1852. The McKinstrys cultivated barley, wheat, hay, and other crops on the property for sale to the U.S. Army at Fort Yuma and San Diego. They hired John L. McIntire to manage the ranching operations, and Francis (Frank) Stone ran a general store there. In 1858, McIntire won a court case against the McKinstrys for their failure to pay him. In order to compensate McIntire, a portion of the rancho was auctioned off by court order to members of the Ortega family, who mortgaged the land to Francisa Uribes de Ocampo in 1860 (County DPR and Julian Historical Society 2006:5–6).

From 1863 through 1867, Santa Ysabel was acquired incrementally by L. J. Yager (also spelled Jager or Iager in some documents). A former steamboat captain on the Colorado River at Yuma, Yager integrated Santa Ysabel into a larger ranching operation that included Rancho San Felipe and land along the Colorado River. Like the McKinstrys, Yager sold cattle and feed raised on his landholdings to the U.S. Army at Fort Yuma. Yager resided in Yuma and employed others to manage Santa Ysabel, including members of the Ocampo family (County DPR and Julian Historical Society 2005:6; Wade et al. 2009:67).

Captain Alfred Wilcox acquired Santa Ysabel in two purchases during 1868–1869, when Yager filed bankruptcy. Wilcox was a former steamboat operator at Yuma and a friend of Yager who married María Antonia Argüello. The couple owned and resided at a home in San Diego and also owned Rancho La Punta at the mouth of the Otay River. During the early 1870s, an estimated 200 Native Americans lived at Santa Ysabel. Wilcox brought in and raised sheep at the property. San Francisco resident B. M. Hartshorne acquired an interest in Santa Ysabel and raised cattle there for a time. Edward R. Stokes, son of Edward F. Stokes, also acquired or retained an older interest in the property. The nature of Stokes’s interest remains unclear, but he conveyed title to Wilcox in 1876. Wilcox died in 1883 (County DPR and Julian Historical Society 2006:6; Wade et al. 2009:67–68).

In 1885 Charles Martin, Barney Brackett, and James Bloom acquired Santa Ysabel from María Argüello, Wilcox’s widow, for a price of $75,000. The three partners were successful real estate investors and dairy operators who resided in Sonoma County, where a thriving dairy industry had

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐17 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

taken shape supported by a large community of Swiss‐Italian immigrants. The partners brought in dairy cattle and hired Swiss‐Italians to develop and run dairying operations at Santa Ysabel. They employed Samuel Rotanzi as superintendent of the Santa Ysabel operation, which soon employed 25 people and produced 20,000 pounds of butter annually by the 1890s (Wade et al. 2009:67–68).

A map of Rancho Santa Ysabel dating to 1899 provides insight into the location of buildings and dairying facilities around the turn of the century (Figure 1‐3). The map identifies the Santa Ysabel “townsite” at the intersection of the roads to Julian (Highway 78) and Warner’s Ranch (79), where the Sonoma partners built the trading post and post office that remains present there today. The main dairy and ranch house was located just west of where the road to Mesa Grande branches northwest from the road to Warner’s Ranch. An additional dairy was situated along the road to Mesa Grande approximately 3 miles northeast of the main dairy. A third dairy was located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the main dairy and a mile northwest of the town site (Wade et al. 2009:69; Wheaton 1899). Neither the 1899 map of Rancho Santa Ysabel nor the 1903 Ramona topographic map (produced from 1900–1901 surveys) indicate that any buildings were present within the Preserve study area at the turn of the century. Additionally, an aerial view dating to 1928–1929 (Figure 1‐4), and historic topographic maps produced from surveys and aerial photographs dating to 1939, 1954, 1960, and 1988 indicate that no buildings were constructed within the Preserve study area after the turn of the century (San Diego County 1928; USGS 1903, 1975, 1960, 1988).

Eventually residing at the main dairy’s ranch house with his wife, Rotanzi continued to run Santa Ysabel’s dairying operations and manage its employees into the early 1920s. During that decade, however, the Rotanzi family left Santa Ysabel and Florenzo Moretti took over management of the dairies. Florenzo had come to the United States in 1888 and worked at Santa Ysabel for over 20 years. He appears to have purchased the dairy complex along the road to Mesa Grande northwest of the main Santa Ysabel dairy complex. Morretti moved with his family into the ranch house at the main dairy along the road to Warner’s Ranch with his family. By that time, Santa Ysabel had converted from butter production to milk production (Wade et al. 2009:71–72).

Census records indicate that Florenzo had died by 1930, and his widow Linda (also listed in census records as Emelinda) had taken over management of Santa Ysabel’s dairying operations. Other people working and residing at the main dairy complex in 1930 included Florinde Dalessi, Victor Cauzza, Elmo Cauzza, Aide Segni, and Romildo Seni, all Swiss‐Italian, as well as German immigrant Jacob Feigel and Native American Dan De La Chapa (Wade et al 2009:72).

Over the next several decades, Santa Ysabel’s dairying operations were automated and mechanized through new forms of dairy technology. During the middle of the century, San Diego County’s leading rancher, George Sawday, acquired an interest in Santa Ysabel. By 1960, the Santa Ysabel Ranch’s owners included Mr. and Mrs. Orville Cummings (George Sawday’s daughter and son‐in‐ law), Phillip Moretti, the estate of Mrs. Linda Moretti, and Victor Cauzza, the latter of whom distinguished himself as a leading citizen of the Santa Ysabel‐Julian area. At this time, with Victor Cauzza as president and manager, and Oroville Cumming as secretary‐treasurer, the Santa Ysabel Ranch, Inc. raised both beef and dairy cattle on the property (Wade et al. 2009:72–73).

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐18 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

Figure 1-3. 1899 Map Showing Features of Santa Ysabel Ranch in the Project Vicinity; the study area is within the eastern half of Sec. 21.

(P.P. Wheaton, Map of the Santa Ysabel Rancho, 1899, on file at San Diego County Cartographic Services).

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐19 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

Figure 1-4. Late 1920’s Aerial Photograph of Santa Ysabel and Most of the Project Area

(1928–1929 San Diego County Aerial Survey, Photograph 36-3B, on file at San Diego County Cartographic Services).

1.2.2 Records Search Results ICF archaeologist Karolina Chmiel, M.A., requested a records and literature search from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University on February 1, 2016. The SCIC houses information on historical resources and archaeological sites in San Diego and Imperial Counties. The purpose of the request was to identify archaeological sites and built‐environment resources and cultural resources studies performed in or within 1 mile of the study area. The results from the records search can be found in Appendix A.

Previous Studies A total of 23 cultural resources studies have been completed within one mile of the study area. Four of these studies occurred within a portion of the study area (see shaded studies on Table 1‐1). These surveys covered approximately 95% of the study area; the remainder had not been surveyed prior to the current study. The previous studies conducted within the project area consist of four

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐20 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

Archaeological Inventory Reports (Hector and Brewster, 2002; SWCA, 2008; Noah and Gallegos, 2008, and Rosenburg 2010).

Table 1‐1. Cultural Resource Studies within a 1‐mile Radius of the Study Area

NADB # Date Author Report Title 1120025 1983 Dominici, Debra A. 1983 Archaeological Survey Left Turn Lane ‐ Inaja Park 1120216 1985 Cardenas, Sean D. and Cultural Resources Inventory and Assessment: Cathy Winterrowd Barbic Property 1121652 1974 Walker, Noel P. Jr. Archaeological Survey of Wynola Estates Santa Ysabel, California 1122073 1987 County of San Diego Draft Environmental Impact Report Julian Department of Planning Community Plan Update and Land Use 1122075 1988 County of San Diego Draft Environmental Impact Report North Department of Planning Mountain Subregional Plan Update and Land Use 1124092 1998 Gallegos, Dennis R. and Archaeological Data Recovery Program For Sinead Ni Ghablain Skyline Wesleyan Church, CA‐SDI‐4763, Locus 1, County of San Diego, CA 1124190 1989 Colombo, Marilyn A First Addendum Phase I Archaeological Survey Report and Extended Phase I Results for Three Proposed Passing Turnouts on State Route 78, San Diego County, CA 1127617 1993 USDA Forest Service Archaeological Report Short Form Inaja Memorial Picnic Ground Reconstruction 1129488 2005a Mirro, Michael Cultural Resources Survey of Participating Parcels in the Greater Julian ‐ Central Julian Area (Downtown, Wynola, and Volcan) 1129602 2005b Mirro, Michael Cultural Resources Survey of Participating Parcels in the Greater Julian ‐ Central Julian Area (Downtown, Wynola, and Volcan) with Updated Potential Effects and Mitigation of Identified Cultural Resources 1130059 2004 Lauko, Kimberly and Cultural Resource Survey Results for Cingular Carrel, Mark Communications Facility Candidate. SD‐226‐01 (McCune Residence) 1210 Lakedale Road, Santa Ysabel, San Diego County, California 1131216 2006 Hector, Susan Cultural Resources Survey of the Tulloch Property, Santa Ysabel, California 1131623 2002 Hector, Susan and San Dieguito River Valley Inventory of Brewster, Alice Archaeological Resources 1131977 2008 SWCA Final Cultural Resources Survey of Alternatives for the Sunrise Powerlink Project in Imperial, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, California 1132044 2008 Noah, Anna C. and Gallegos, Final Class III Archaeological Inventory for the Dennis R. SDG&E Sunrise Powerlink Project, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California 1132048 2008 Noah, Anna C. Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Santa

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐21 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

NADB # Date Author Report Title Ysabel Indian Reservation Portion of the Santa Ysabel SR 79 All UndergroundAlternative of the Proposed SDG&E Sunrise Powerlink Project 1132484 2009 Potter, Elizabeth Cultural Resources Survey for the SDG&E Pole Replacement Project in Santa Ysabel, San Diego County, California 1133553 2010 Rosenburg, Seth A. TL 685 Warners to Santa Ysabel Wood to Steel Pole Replacement Cultural Resources Inventory Report‐ Revised 1133644 2011 Tennesen, Kristin Cultural Resources Survey for Road Work to Pole P17807 Project, Santa Ysabel, San Diego County, California 1133665 2009 Rosenburg, Seth A. Cultural Resources Revview; Wood to Steel Pole Conversion TL 637 1133708 2009 Whittaker, James E. Cultural Resources Survey For The Replacement of Three Distribution Poles in Ramona, San Diego County, California 1133726 2009 Whittaker, James E. Cultural Resources Survey For The Replacement of Five Distribution Poles in Santa Ysabel, San Diego County, California 1134979 2013 Williams, Brian Archaeological Survey and Job Walk for the SDG&E C222 Reconductor and Wood to Steel Project, Santa Ysabel, San Diego County, California *Shaded reports encompassed portions of the current study area.

Previously Recorded Sites in the Study Area There are 77 previously recorded archaeological sites present within a 1‐mile radius of the study area (Table 1‐2). Seven previously identified sites have been recorded within the study area. These sites include six prehistoric bed rock milling features (most with lithic scatters, ceramics, and/or groundstone present), and one historic stone and mortar wall.

Table 1‐2. Cultural Resources Recorded within a 1‐mile Radius of the Study Area

Primary Trinomial (P‐37‐) (CA‐SDI‐) Type/Description Dimensions Site Form Reference 1029 1029 Multicomponent: Prehistoric‐med 60 x 60 m Whittaker 2009 density BMFand ceramics; Historic‐ building foundations 1030 1030 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 40 x 40 m Mulroy 1962 unspecified stone, ceramics. 1031 1031 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 150 x 150 m Noah et al. 2008 flaked stone, ceramics. 1032 1032 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 15 x 15 m Mulroy 1962 flaked stone, ground stone 1033 1033 Prehistoric‐high density: BMF, 10 x 7 m Mulroy 1962 ground stone, ceramics. 4593 4593 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 90 x 60 m Wiliams 2010

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐22 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

Primary Trinomial (P‐37‐) (CA‐SDI‐) Type/Description Dimensions Site Form Reference flaked stone, ceramics 4594 4594 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, likely 3 x 3 m Weinberg et al. 2005 destroyed 4595 4595 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, likely 3 x 3 m Weinberg et al. 2005 destroyed 24350 Historic‐bridge #57‐161 built prior No information Purcell 1978 to 1938 24832 16452 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, flaked 10 x 15 m Hector 2003 stone, ceramics 24833 16453 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, flaked 10 x 15 m Hector 2003 stone, ceramics 24834 16454 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, flaked 10 x 10 m Whittaker 2009 stone, ceramics 24835 16455 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, flaked 10 x 10 m Hector 2003 stone, ceramics 24836 16456 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, flaked 15 x 20 m Hector 2003 stone, ceramics 24837 16457 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, flaked 20 x 25 m Hector 2003a stone, ceramics 24838 16458 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, flaked 15 x 20 m Hector 2003b stone, ceramics 24839 16459 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, flaked 15 x 15 m Hector 2003c stone, ceramics 24840 16460 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF, flaked 15 x 15 m Hector 2003d stone, ceramics 25540 16957 Prehistoric‐medium density: 6 loci, 175 x 75 m Leach‐Palm et al. 2003 BMF, flaked stone, ceramics 25541 16964 Prehistoric‐low density: an isolated 5 x 5 m Leach‐Palm et al. 2003 BMF 25542 16958 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 22 x 10 m Leach‐Palm et al. 2003 ceramics 25543 Prehistoric‐(isolate): groundstone N/A Leach‐Palm et al. 2003 25544 16959 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF 10 x 10 m Leach‐Palm et al. 2003 25545 16960 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 200 x 50 m Leach‐Palm et al. 2003 flaked stone, ceramics 25546 16961 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF 12 x 12 m Leach‐Palm et al. 2003 26375 17318 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 60 x 60 m Pallette 2004 flaked stone, ceramics 26916 17603 Prehistoric‐low density: an isolated 10 x 2 m Taft et al. 2006 BMF 28675 18431 Prehistoric‐low density: an isolated 8 x 8 m Anderson et al. 2005 BMF 28676 18432 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 50 x 50 m Anderson et al. 2006 28746 18484 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 91 x 108 m Doose et al. 2007 flaked stone, ceramics

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐23 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

Primary Trinomial (P‐37‐) (CA‐SDI‐) Type/Description Dimensions Site Form Reference 28747 18485 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 20 x 60 m Doose et al. 2007 ceramics 28750 18487 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 10 x 30 m Welsh et al. 2007 flaked stone 28834 18511 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 15 x 63 m Williams et al. 2007 flaked stone 28835 18512 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 12 x 12 m Williams et al. 2007 28836 18513 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 12 x 12 m Williams et al. 2007 flaked stone, ceramics 28862 18534 Prehistoric‐high density: BMF, 60 x 130 m Noah et al. 2007 flaked stone, ceramics 28863 18535 Prehistoric‐high density: BMF, 70 x 240 m Noah et al. 2007 flaked stone, ceramics 28864 18536 Prehistoric‐high density: habitation, 40 x 158 m Doose et al. 2007 BMF, ground stone, flaked stone, cermaics, 29089 18628 Historic‐Isolated Rock wall 75 x 10 m Whittaker 2009c 29296 18737 Prehistoric‐low density: lithic 20 x 90 m Noah et al. 2007 scatter 29612 Prehistoric‐(isolate): flaked stone N/A Spelts et al. 2008 29634 18936 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 12 x 17 m Spelts et al. 2008 flaked stone, ceramics, groundstone 29635 18937 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 10 x 11 m Spelts et al. 2008 29636 18938 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 10 x 15 m Spelts et al. 2008 29638 18940 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 10 x 10 m Spelts et al. 2007 29752 Prehistoric‐(isolate): groundstone N/A Covert et al. 2007 29760 Historic‐low density: well 2 x 2 m Hares et al. 2007 29761 19025 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 16 x 8 m Connell et al. 2007 29766 19030 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 12 x 11 m Covert et al. 2007 29767 19031 Historic‐medium density: building 100 x 70 m Covert et al. 2007 foundations, machinery, and refuse 30203 Prehistoric‐(isolate): groundstone N/A Piek 2007 30204 Prehistoric‐(isolate): groundstone N/A Piek 2007 30208 19243 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 18 x 15 m Piek 2007 30209 19244 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 2 x 1 m Piek 2007 30210 19245 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 6 x 3 m Piek 2007 30211 19246 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 5 x 12 m Piek 2007 30212 Historic‐low density: culvert 5 x 5 m Piek 2007 30462 19357 Historic‐low density: refuse scatter 110 x 20 m Wolf et al. 2009 30483 19371 Historic‐medium density: refuse 25 x 30 m Wolf et al. 2009 scatter 30849 19597 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 9 x 6 m Dorrler 2009 30850 19598 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 5 x 4 m Dorrler 2009

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐24 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

Primary Trinomial (P‐37‐) (CA‐SDI‐) Type/Description Dimensions Site Form Reference 30854 Prehistoric‐(isolate): ceramics N/A Dorrler 2009 31458 19988 Prehistoric‐high density: BMF, 15 x 15 m Potter et al. 2010 flaked stone, ceramics 31459 19989 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 15 x 15 m Potter et al. 2010 31460 19990 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 50 x 50 m Potter et al. 2010 31466 19996 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 15 x 16 m Justus et al. 2010 31467 19997 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 20 x 12 m Justus et al. 2010 31468 19998 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 5 x 5 m Justus et al. 2010 31471 20001 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF, 31 x 40 m Justus et al. 2010 flaked stone, ceramics 31472 20002 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 21 x 8 m Justus et al. 2010 31478 20006 Prehistoric‐medium density: BMF 30 x 30 m Hector 2010 31693 Historic‐low density: water N/A Morgan et al. 2010 conveyance 31695 20128 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 44 x 15 m Morgan et al. 2010 31972 20241 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF No information Quach 2011 31974 20243 Historic‐low density: refuse scatter 5 x 5 m Quach 2011 32548 20669 Prehistoric‐low density: BMF 3 x 4 m Cordova et al. 2012 32851 Historic‐medium density: building 25 x 12 m Cordova et al. 2012 foundations, well, *Shaded resources partially or fully located within the current study area; m= meter. 1.3 Applicable Regulations Federal, state, and local regulations recognize the public’s interest in cultural resources and the public benefit in preserving them. These laws and regulations require analysts to consider how a project might affect cultural resources and to take steps to avoid or reduce the potential to damage them. A cultural resource can be considered any property valued (monetarily, aesthetically, or religiously) by a group of people. Valued properties can be historical in character or date to the prehistoric past. The project is subject to the rules and regulations that govern the treatment of archaeological sites in the State of California. If the project requires federal permits, it would be considered a federal undertaking and would also be conducted in compliance with the NHPA. The NHPA is the primary mandate governing projects under federal jurisdiction that might affect cultural resources. The following summarizes the cultural resources regulations that apply to the project. 1.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act The NHPA requires that, before beginning any undertaking, a federal agency must take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on these actions (16 United States Code 470f). The Section 106 process is presented in 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800 and consists of five steps.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐25 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

1. Initiate the process by coordinating with other environmental reviews, consulting with the state historic preservation officer, identifying and consulting with interested parties, and identifying points in the process to seek input from the public and to notify the public of proposed actions.

2. Identify cultural resources and evaluate them for NRHP eligibility, resulting in the identification of Historic Properties.

3. Assess effects of the project on Historic Properties.

4. Consult with the state historic preservation officer and interested parties regarding adverse effects on Historic Properties, resulting in a Memorandum of Agreement.

5. Proceed in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement. 1.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA is the primary regulation that guides the need for environmental review in California. The purpose of CEQA is to consider whether a project would result in adverse effects on the environment and whether any effects could be reduced or mitigated. Any projects undertaken by a public agency or any discretionary projects (i.e., projects that require the exercise of judgment or deliberation by a public agency) performed by private parties are subject to the CEQA process. Under CEQA, “historical resources” are considered part of the environment, and are therefore protected. “Historical resources” (§15064.5(a)) are defined as:

 A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 4850 et seq.).

 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 of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code.

 Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that 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, 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), which parallel the NRHP criteria but consider state and local significance.

Even in instances where a resource is not listed in, nor determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR; not included in a local register of historical resources; or not identified in an historical resources survey, a lead agency may still determine that a resource is a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. If it is determined that a project would result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical resource, then that project would have a “significant effect” on the environment.

CEQA also contains provisions regarding the protection of Native American remains (§15064.5(d) and (e)). In the event that a study identifies the existence of, or likelihood of, Native American

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐26 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

remains, the lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code §5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. 1.3.3 San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources San Diego County requires that resource importance be assessed not only at the state level, as required by CEQA, but at the local level if a resource meets any of the local register criteria, which parallel the NRHP criteria but consider resource significance at the county and local levels.

1.4 Guidelines for Determining Significance Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of San Diego County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, criteria outlined in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), CEQA, and the San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources (Local Register) provide the guidance for making such a determination. The following sections detail the criteria that a resource must meet in order to be determined important. 1.4.1 National Register of Historic Places The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. According to the NRHP guidelines, the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess in integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that meet any of the following criteria.

 Criterion A. A property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns in our history

 Criterion B. A property is associated with the lives of persons significant to our past.

 Criterion C. A property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

 Criterion D. A property yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The NRHP requires that a resource not only meet one of these criteria but also possess integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey historical significance. The evaluation of a resource’s integrity must be grounded in an understanding of that resource’s physical characteristics and how those characteristics relate to its significance. The NRHP recognizes seven aspects or qualities that,

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐27 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

in various combinations, define the integrity of a property: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Any adverse effect on a historic property is found when an activity may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of the historic property that render it eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The alteration of characteristics is considered an adverse effect if it may diminish its significant aspects of integrity. The assessment of effects on historic properties is conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 36 CFR 800.5. 1.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act According to CEQA (Section15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes 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 SS5024.1, 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 of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically of 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 SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) 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 4) 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 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 Resource Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. According to CEQA (Section 15064.5b), 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. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as follows.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐28 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

(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 an 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. Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites. (1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). (2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, and this section, Section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply. (3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (c‐f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. (4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor an historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or EIR, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process. Section 15064.5 (d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides the following. (d) When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American heritage Commission. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from:

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐29 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Introduction

(1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). (2) The requirement of CEQA and the Coastal Act. 1.4.3 San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources The County requires that resource importance be assessed not only at the state level as required by CEQA, but at the local level as well. If a resource meets any one of the following criteria as outlined in the Local Register, it will be considered an important resource. (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of San Diego County’s history and cultural heritage; (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important to the history of San Diego County or its communities; (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, San Diego County region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 1‐30 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 Research Design

2.1 Objectives The objectives of this study are to relocate and more precisely define the boundaries of (as needed) previously documented archaeological sites and to identify previously undocumented archaeological sites and historic built resources. Project‐related ground disturbance is anticipated in portions of the study area that have the potential to contain buried archaeological deposits. Since the objectives of this study are to relocate, identify, and more precisely define the boundaries of cultural resources to assess whether project‐related ground disturbance would avoid them, none of the resources identified during the study were evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. Therefore, this research design summarizes the anticipated logistical conditions, range of resource types, and the methods that will be used to account for these factors. 2.2 Expectations Review of background information as provided in Section 1.2, Existing Conditions, resulted in the development of the following expectations.

 The geology of the study area indicates that it is located on landforms composed of residuum and alluvium. The former have limited potential to contain buried archaeological deposits, except for those buried by bioturbation. The latter retains the potential to contain buried archaeological deposits. Therefore, the study area retains the potential to contain both buried and surface‐exposed archaeological deposits.

 The vegetation (i.e., grasses with occasional Engelmann oak trees) of the study area is likely to limit the visibility of any surface‐exposed archaeological sites; except in areas where exposed bedrock is present, faunalturbation has resulted in exposed soil, or within the dripline of trees where grasses are sparse. Therefore, it is anticipated that the majority of archaeological sites located within the study area will be associated with the limited vegetation conditions listed above.

 Review of previous archaeological and ethnographic research indicates that the study area and its vicinity were intensively used by prehistoric Native Americans. The most commonly observed indicators of this land use in the study area vicinity are bedrock mortars, pestles, and chipped stone. The study area also contains several locations with exposed bedrock that have yet to be inspected. Therefore, it is considered likely that the study area contains additional as‐yet undocumented prehistoric archaeological sites.

 Review of the local historic context reveals that the study area was subject to very limited development, which primarily consisted of agricultural use; during the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty‐first centuries. Therefore, it is considered likely that any historic archaeological and built resources would be limited to infrastructure associated with agricultural use.

Consistent with the local industry practice of performing pedestrian surveys during Phase I investigations, this study will use pedestrian survey as the primary method for relocating and

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 2‐1 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Research Design

identifying cultural resources. However, based on an examination of the existing data above, the pedestrian survey will pay particular attention to exposed bedrock, rodent burrows and ant colonies, and within the dripline of trees—where the conditions are more conducive for the identification of surface‐exposed archaeological sites. Since the study area retains the potential to contain buried archaeological deposits in areas where project‐related ground disturbance is proposed, shovel probes will be used to assess whether buried archaeological deposits are present.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 2‐2 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 Analysis of Project Effects

3.1 Methods 3.1.1 Historical Background Research A large amount of historical information on the project vicinity was gathered at the County DPR History Center, which ICF historian/architectural historian Timothy Yates visited on February 16, 2016. The History Center holds extensive newspaper clippings on the history of Santa Ysabel compiled by County DPR volunteer researcher Ellen Sweet, as well as an ownership history of the Santa Ysabel Rancho/Ranch prepared by Ms. Sweet using County Assessor records and other primary sources. This study also makes extensive reference to the in‐depth historical analysis of Santa Ysabel in the document 240 Years of Ranching: Historical Research, Field Surveys, Oral Interviews, Significance Criteria, and Management Recommendations for Ranching Districts and Sites in the San Diego Region (2009), by Sue A. Wade, Stephen R. Van Wormer, and Heather Thomson. Additional historic newspaper research was conducted using the full‐text searchable Newspaper.com online database. ICF gathered secondary source historical studies relevant to the study area at the San Diego Public Library’s Central Library and various branch libraries. Other research sources included historic topographic maps and historic aerial photographs and maps on file at the Cartographic Services desk of the San Diego County Department of Public Works. The results of this research were integrated into the historic context section provided in Chapter 2. 3.1.2 Survey Methods ICF archaeologists used three methods to investigate the study area, including a pedestrian survey of the entire study area, a shovel probe survey in the proposed area of ground disturbance, and monitoring of geotechnical borings within and adjacent to the proposed area of ground disturbance. Pedestrian survey transects, SP locations, and geotechnical boring locations are provided in Figure 3‐1.

Pedestrian Survey On March 31, 2016, ICF archaeologists J. Tait Elder, MA, RPA, Nara Cox, BA, Jordan Menvielle, BA, and Red Tail Monitoring & Research, Inc. (Red Tail) Native American monitor Dennis Linton performed an intensive pedestrian survey of the study area. On April 11, 2016, ICF archaeologist J. Tait Elder, and Red Tail Native American monitor Gabe Kitchen returned to the study area to perform an intensive pedestrian survey of any remaining unsurveyed portions of the study area. Approximately 22 acres of the northeastern edge of the study area was not intensively surveyed because slopes in this area were greater than 30 degrees. They were, however, inspected from the base of the slope. For the purposes of this study, intensive pedestrian survey consisted of walking transects spaced at 15‐meter intervals and carefully inspecting the ground surface to identify surface‐exposed artifacts, features, and infrastructure where vegetation permitted. Across much of the study area, ground surface visibility was poor (ranging from 0 to 25%). Ground surface visibility was significantly better (75 to 100%) on and around bedrock outcrops, ant colonies, rodent

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 3‐1 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Analysis of Project Effects

burrows, and within the dripline of trees. Therefore, these areas were inspected thoroughly, whenever present. The spacing between each line in the figure represents either two‐ or four‐ person transect spacing on Figure 3‐1.

In instances where artifacts, features, or infrastructure were located within a previously documented resource boundary; the discovery would be described, photographed, and mapped, but no additional survey was performed. If no discoveries occurred within the boundaries of previously documented resources, they were revisited and inspected thoroughly. No previously undocumented artifacts, features, or infrastructure were identified outside of the boundaries of previously documented resources.

An Apple iPad equipped with an integrated Global Positioning System (GPS) and the ArcGIS Collector application was used to track and record transects and any identified cultural deposits. All field observations, photographs, and information about any resources or important landscape features were collected using the ArcGIS Collector application. All information was collected in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the California Archaeological Inventory Handbook for Completing Archaeological Site Records (OHP 1989).

Shovel Probe Survey On March 30, 31, and April 12, 2016, ICF archaeologists J. Tait Elder, MA, RPA, Nara Cox, BA, Jordan Menvielle, BA, and Red Tail Native American monitors, Annette Osuna and Dennis Linton, performed a shovel probe (SP) survey within the proposed March/April 2016 Nature Center area of ground disturbance. The SP survey was not completed during this period because the proposed Nature Center area of ground disturbance was being revised. The revised proposed Nature Center area of ground disturbance was provided to ICF in August 2016. On August 23, 24, and 25, 2016, ICF archaeologists, J. Tait Elder, Patrick McGinnis, MA, Tom Sowles, BA, and Red Tail Native American monitors, Dennis Linton and Craig Taylor, performed a SP survey in remaining portions of the proposed August 2016 Nature Center area of ground disturbance that were not investigated during the March/April 2016 investigations.

During the March/April 2016 survey, SPs were excavated at 10‐meter intervals within the proposed area of ground disturbance. Following discussions with DPR and Iipay Nation of the Santa Ysabel contact Clint Linton, the spacing between SPs was increased to 20‐meter intervals during the August 2016 survey. SPs were excavated manually by shovel, and consisted of round holes (40 to 50 centimeter diameter) excavated to a depth of 60 centimeters below the ground surface unless impassible conditions or decomposing bedrock was encountered. In a limited number of instances, SPs were excavated to greater depths to better understand the depth of Holocene alluvium across the study area. All sediments removed from SPs were screened through 3‐millimeter mesh hardware cloth and inspected for artifacts. Upon the completion of each SP, archaeologists visually inspected profile walls, documented sediments, stratigraphy, contents, and any other relevant observations. If the SP was terminated prior to reaching the terminal depth identified above, the reason for early termination was noted. SPs were photographed using a digital camera, and their locations were recorded using an Apple iPad equipped with an integrated GPS and the ArcGIS Collector application. No artifacts were identified during the SP survey; therefore, no procedures relating to the documentation, analysis, and collection of artifacts were needed.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 3‐2 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Analysis of Project Effects

Geotechnical Monitoring On August 25, 2016, ICF archaeologist Nara Cox, BA, monitored the excavation of eight geotechnical borings spaced at strategic intervals within and adjacent to the proposed area of ground disturbance. Archaeological monitoring consisted of inspecting sediment samples and cuttings for artifacts and recording sedimentary composition and stratigraphy when possible. Boring locations were mapped by DPR’s geotechnical consultant and provided to ICF after the geotechnical investigations were completed.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 3‐3 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 # Shovel Test Project Impacts Project Area Unsurveyed Survey Coverage

±

0 75 150 300

Feet

Figure 3-1 Survey Coverage Santa Ysabel Nature Center Project County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Analysis of Project Effects

3.1.3 Native American Participation and Consultation On April 19, 2016, ICF archaeologist Karolina Chmiel, MA, sent a letter to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on behalf of DPR requesting a review of its Sacred Lands Files. The NAHC responded on April 20, 2016, stating that sites have been located in the vicinity of the study area, and indicated that the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel and other culturally affiliated tribes should be contacted for information about the sites. On May 11, 2016, ICF archaeologist J. Tait Elder forwarded the letter to DPR project manager Lorrie Bradley so that DPR could coordinate with the identified tribes. Correspondence with the NAHC is included in Appendix B of this report. 3.2 Results ICF archaeologists relocated three out of seven previously documented archaeological sites within the study area. No previously undocumented archaeological sites or isolates were identified within the study area and none of the previously documented archaeological sites are located within, or adjacent to, the proposed area of ground disturbance. Table 3‐1 summarizes the cultural resources identified during the survey and Figure 3‐2 in Confidential Appendix C depicts the location of each resource within the study area.

California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 site records can be found in Confidential Appendix D. Upon completion of the survey, ICF staff submitted site records with temporary designations to the SCIC for issuance of permanent trinomials. 3.2.1 Pedestrian Survey The pedestrian survey relocated three of the seven archaeological sites that were previously documented within the study area (P‐37‐030208, P‐37‐030850, and P‐37‐029089) (Table 3‐1). In these instances, no additional artifacts or features were identified outside of the previously established site boundaries. In four instances (P‐37‐024837, P‐37‐024838, P‐37‐024839, and P‐37‐ 024840), archaeological sites were not relocated. In all four instances, the archaeological sites consisted of bedrock mortars. Based on the absence of exposed bedrock boulders at each of the locations, combined with the presence of several discrete piles of stacked boulders across the study area, it appears that modern agricultural use of the study area has displaced the contents of these archaeological sites. Summaries of the contents of each of the relocated archaeological sites are provided below.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 3‐6 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Analysis of Project Effects

Table 3‐1. Cultural Resources Identified During the Field Survey

Resource # Description Maximum Dimensions

P‐37‐030208/ CA‐ Prehistoric Bedrock Milling Feature 18 x 15 m. SDI‐19243

P‐37‐030850/ CA‐ Prehistoric Bedrock Milling Feature 4.4 x 3.8 m. SDI‐019598

P‐37‐029089/ CA‐ Historic Rock Wall 2 x 1.5 ft. SDI‐018628

P‐37‐030208/ CA‐SDI‐19243: This site consists of a large prehistoric milling feature measuring 18 by 15 by 2 meters. It contains two slicks and four mortars, and was previously recorded by Gallegos and Associates in 2007. At that time, no associated artifacts were observed. When revisited by ICF archaeologists, all previously documented milling attributes were identified, as were an additional two groundstone fragments adjacent to the bedrock outcrop that contained the slicks and mortars.

P‐37‐030850/CA‐SDI‐019598: This site consists of a prehistoric milling feature measuring 4.4 by 3.8 meters which displays one slick and three mortars. It was previously recorded by Dorrler and Whittaker in 2007. At that time, no associated artifacts were observed and thick grass was noted in the surrounding area. When revisited by ICF archaeologists, all previously documented milling attributes were relocated and no additional artifacts or features were identified.

P‐37‐029089/CA‐SDI‐018628: This site consists of a historic rock wall feature and associated survey marker dated 1948. The rock wall measures 24 by 8 by 18 inches, is three courses in height, and is composed of locally procured angular rock and mortar. The site was originally recorded by Gallegos and Associates in 2007 and updated by Whittaker in 2009. When revisited by ICF archaeologists, all of the previously documented elements of the site were relocated and no additional artifacts or features were identified. 3.2.2 Shovel Probe Survey A total of 168 SPs were excavated within and adjacent to the proposed August 2016 area of ground disturbance. Review of the sedimentary composition and stratigraphy in SPs revealed three discrete strata in the tested area. Table 3‐2 summarizes the physical attributes and inferred depositional environment for each stratum. Descriptions of each SP are provided in Appendix E.

Table 3‐2. Physical Attributes and Inferred Depositional Environment of Observed Deposits

Stratum Deposit Description Inferred Depositional Designation Environment 1 Loosely to moderately compacted, slightly moist to dry, dark brown to brown, Alluvium - slopewash silt to fine sandy silt. Very sparse subangular granules and pebbles. 2 Very compact and dry dark reddish brown clay with angular granules and Decomposing bedrock pebbles. Granules and density increase with depth. 3 Dry, densely compacted reddish brown clayey silt to clayey sandy silt. Sparse Older alluvium - slopewash subangular granules and pebbles.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 3‐7 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Analysis of Project Effects

The SP survey revealed that much of the proposed area of ground disturbance is mantled by alluvium (Stratum 1) at the ground surface. Stratum 1 grades from greater than 1.3 meters thick on the alluvial fans that border the bedrock uplands along the eastern margin of the study area (in the vicinity of the proposed Nature Center building) to a few centimeters thick along the southern and western margins of the study area. Based on the absence of any perennial streams in the study area, it is inferred that Stratum 1 was primarily deposited via slopewash—or the unconfined water‐ induced downslope movement of sediments during periods of precipitation. Based on the fact that Stratum 1 was moderately to loosely compacted and had minimal clay, it is inferred that Stratum 1 is more recent in age than Stratum 3—despite the fact that they appear to share a geomorphic origin. Given its age and depositional origin, Stratum 1 was considered to have the highest degree of sensitivity for containing buried archaeological deposits.

In many instances, Stratum 1 was underlain by decomposing bedrock (Stratum 2), but there were a small number of instances at the southeastern edge of the study area where Stratum 2 was encountered at the ground surface. Stratum 2 was considered to have no sensitivity for containing buried archaeological deposits. Therefore, in all instances where Stratum 2 was encountered, SPs were terminated within this stratum.

In several instances along the western margin of the study area, older alluvium (Stratum 3) was encountered below Stratum 1. Although this stratum had attributes that were similar to Stratum 1, its dense compaction, dark red color, and the high amount of clay particles that it contained rendered it visibly distinct from Stratum 1. Stratum 3 was considered to have limited sensitivity for containing buried archaeological deposits. In all instances where Stratum 3 was encountered, SPs were terminated within this stratum. This was, in part, because it was considered likely to predate the period for which there is documented evidence of human occupation of North America and, in part, because compaction rapidly increased with depth to an extent that neither a shovel nor a breaker bar could penetrate this stratum.

No buried surfaces, artifacts, or archaeological deposits were identified during the SP survey. 3.2.3 Geotechnical Monitoring An ICF archaeologist and Red Tail Native American representative monitored the excavation of eight geotechnical borings. The archaeological monitor’s field observations are provided in Appendix F. Review of the sediment samples and cuttings exposed during geotechnical investigations revealed a stratigraphic pattern similar to that observed during the SP survey. This pattern included the presence of alluvium at the ground surface across much of the area of ground disturbance, the presence of older alluvium along the western margin of the study area, and the presence of decomposing bedrock underlying alluvium across much of the study area. Additional notable observations included:

 A band of reddish‐brown colluvium was observed within the alluvium located in the vicinity of the proposed Nature Center building.

 Combined, colluvium and alluvium appeared to be up to 6.5 meters thick on the alluvial fan in the vicinity of the proposed Nature Center building.

No buried surfaces, artifacts, or archaeological deposits were identified during the geotechnical monitoring effort.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 3‐8 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 Interpretation of Resource Importance and Impact Identification

4.1 Resource Importance A total of three cultural resources were identified within the study area during the survey; two prehistoric sites and one historic site. Four previously documented cultural resources, all bedrock mortars, could not be relocated during the survey. For planning purposes, the County requests a statement regarding the significance (i.e., CRHR and/or NRHP eligibility) of all resources identified during the survey. As resource evaluations were not performed as part of this study, the following are preliminary inferences based on the resource types identified and the precedent for determining the significance of similar resource types in the study area vicinity. However, it is important to note that additional investigations would be necessary in order to formally evaluate these resources for their CRHR and/or NRHP eligibility. Therefore, none of the inferences provided below should be considered formal recommendations. Table 4‐1 summarizes significance inferences for the resources identified during the current study.

Table 4‐1. Potential Significance of Identified Cultural Resources within the Study Area

Inferred Preliminary Resource Description Significance Reasoning Recommendation P‐37‐030208 Prehistoric Moderate‐Low Range of artifact types present, Avoidance and Bedrock Milling but sparse and with low density. Preservation Feature No information relating to subsurface deposits. Activity represented by site is likely to be common. P‐37‐030850 Prehistoric Low One feature type represented; no Avoidance and Bedrock Milling other visible artifact or feature Preservation Feature types observed. Activity represented by sites contents is likely to be common. Unless subsurface investigations reveal additional artifacts or features, data potential would be limited. P‐37‐029089 Historic Rock Low Common historical resource type Avoidance and Wall with limited data potential. Preservation P‐37‐24837 Prehistoric NA Was not relocated No further Bedrock Milling consideration Feature P‐37‐24838 Prehistoric NA Was not relocated No further Bedrock Milling consideration Feature P‐37‐24839 Prehistoric NA Was not relocated No further Bedrock Milling consideration Feature P‐37‐24839 Prehistoric NA Was not relocated No further Bedrock Milling consideration

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 4‐1 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Interpretation of Resource Importance Department of Parks and Recreation and Impact Identification

Inferred Preliminary Resource Description Significance Reasoning Recommendation Feature

Two prehistoric bedrock milling features were identified within the study area, one of which also contained ground and flaked stone and pottery. Neither site is located within the proposed area of ground disturbance and both were documented during previous surveys but were not previously evaluated for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or County Registers. These site types are thought to reflect late prehistoric resource collection and processing activities by the Kumeyaay people. As demonstrated in Section 1.2.2, Records Search Results, these sites occur in an area with abundant evidence of prehistoric land use (n=76 sites) and are a very common site type in the area. Based on the results of the shovel probe survey, it does not appear that subsurface components associated with these sites extend into the proposed area of ground disturbance. It is unknown whether they have subsurface components within their current boundaries. This would be a key consideration for determining whether an archaeological site is likely to yield significant information to be considered for the CRHR under Criterion 4 and the NRHP under Criterion D. Until this information can be determined through formal subsurface testing and evaluation, these sites should be considered eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, and County Registers. However, given the absence (P‐37‐030850) or sparse (P‐37‐030208) nature of the surface‐exposed artifacts in association with the milling features that comprise these sites and that this site type does not typically have a subsurface component, the potential for encountering a subsurface component at either site is considered to be low to moderate.

Four prehistoric bedrock milling features within the study area but outside of the proposed area of ground disturbance could not be relocated during the survey, and are considered likely to have been displaced while the study area was in agricultural use in the historic and recent past. Since these sites could not be relocated, no consideration of their significance is provided.

One historic rock wall and survey marker was also identified in the study area, but outside of the proposed area of ground disturbance. The rock wall and survey marker are common site types and are likely to provide very limited, if any, information that would be considered important to history or prehistory. This site is considered likely to be infrastructure associated with ranching activities, and to have limited potential for being eligible for listing in the CRHR and/or NRHP. 4.2 Impact Identification Currently, all proposed ground disturbing activities will avoid all archaeological sites previously documented within the study area and DPR has not proposed any other project‐related ground disturbing activities. As a result, no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to cultural resources are anticipated at this time.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 4‐2 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 Management Considerations— Mitigation Measures and Design sites

All proposed ground disturbing activities will avoid the archaeological resources that could be relocated during the survey described in this document and DPR has not proposed any other project‐related ground disturbing activities. Therefore, no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts or effects to cultural resources are anticipated. As a result, a finding of no adverse effects to historic properties is recommended under Section 106 of the NHPA and a finding of no significant impacts on historic resources is recommended under CEQA.

Despite this, ICF makes the following recommendations to better characterize, evaluate, avoid, and/or minimize impacts on cultural resources if future project‐related ground disturbing activities occur within the boundaries of the previously documented and relocated archaeological sites within the study area.

 The County of San Diego’s preferred management of cultural resources is avoidance and preservation incorporated into project designs. However, in the event that ground‐disturbing activities are proposed in the vicinity of documented, relocated archaeological sites, DPR will review this document to determine whether the proposed activities will occur within the boundary of any sites. If so, and the proposed activities cannot be redesigned to avoid the cultural resources, DPR will conduct subsurface archaeological testing to determine the CRHR and/or NRHP eligibility of the archaeological sites in question. These investigations will be monitored by Native American representatives. Depending on the results of the testing, mitigation measures—developed in consultation with the affiliated tribes—may be necessary.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 5‐1 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 References

Almstedt, R. F. 1982 Kumeyaay and `IIpay. In (ed. C. M. Woods) APS/SDG&E Interconnection Native American Cultural Resources. Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, CA.

Bean, W. and J. J. Rawls 2003 California: An Interpretive History. 8th ed. McGraw‐Hill Publishing, San Francisco.

Bownman, R.H. 1973 Soil Survey of San Diego Area, California. USDA. Soil Conservancy, Washington DC.

Brackett, R.W. 1960 The History of the San Diego Ranchos: The Spanish, Mexican, and American Occupation of San Diego County and the Story of the Ownership of Land Grants Therein. Union Title Insurance and Trust Company, San Diego, California.

Bull, C.S. 1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In (Ed. D. Gallegos) San Dieguito‐La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper 1

Burt, W.H., and R.P. Grossenheider 1976 A Field Guide to the Mammals of America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

California Geological Survey 2010 Geological Map of California. Available online, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/GMC/stategeologicmap.html. Accessed 20 April 2016.

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 1989 California Archaeological Inventory Handbook for Completing Archaeological Site Records. California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, CA.

Cardenas, S., and Winterrowd, C. 1985 Cultural Resources Inventory and Assessment: Barbic Property Prepared by RBR and Associates, Inc. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐00216.

Carrico, R.L. 2008 Strangers in a Stolen Land: Indians of San Diego County from Prehistory to the New Deal. Second Edition. Sun Belt Publications, San Diego, California.

Colombo, M. 1989 A First Addendum Phase 1 Archaeological Survey Report and Extended Phase 1 Results for Three Proposed Passing Turnouts on State Route 78, San Diego, California Prepared by Marilyn Colombo, Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐ 04190.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 6‐1 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation References

County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use 1987 Draft Environmental Impact Report Julian Community Plan Update Prepared by County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐02073. 1988 Draft Environmental Impact Report North Mountain Subregional Plan Update GPA‐88‐03 Prepared by County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐02075.

Davis, E.L., C.W. Brott, and D.L. Weide 1969 The Western Lithic Co‐Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers 6, San Diego CA.

Dominic, D.A. 1983 1983 Archaeological Survey Left Turn Lane ‐ Inaja Park 11‐SD‐78 P.M. 52.2 11212‐940024‐ 5957078 Neg. Prepared by Caltrans. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐00025.

Dorrler, A. and J. Whitaker 2009 Archaeological Resource Form P‐37‐30850. On‐file at the South Coastal Information Center.

Engelhardt, Z. 1920 San Diego Mission. James H. Barry Company, San Francisco, California.

Erlandson, J.M., T.C. Rick, T.L. Jones, and J.F. Porcasi 2007 One if by Land, Two if by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In (Ed. T.L Jones and K. A. Klar) California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MD.

Farris, G.J. 1997 Captain Jose Panto and the San Pascual Indian Pueblo in San Diego County 1835‐1878. The Journal of San Diego History 43(2). Available: . Accessed February 22, 2016.

Fetzer, L. 2009 The Cuyamacas: The Story of San Diego’s High Country. Sunbelt Publications, San Diego, California.

Gallegos, D. R. 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito‐La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D.R. Gallegos, pp. 23‐ 24. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1, San Diego. 1991 Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In Hunter‐Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J.M. Erlandson and R.H. Colten. pp. 19‐42. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1, J.E. Arnold, general editor, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Gallegos, D., and Ni Ghablain, S. 1988 Archaeological Data Recovery Program for Skyline Wesleyan Church, CA‐SDI‐4763, Locus 1, County of San Diego, CA Prepared by Gallegos and Associates. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐04092.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 6‐2 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation References

Glassow, M.A., A. Lynn, H. Gamble, J.E. Perry, and G.S. Russell 2007 Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges. In (Ed. T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar) California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MD.

Hector, S. 2003a Archaeological Resource Form P‐37‐24837. On‐file at the South Coastal Information Center. 2003b Archaeological Resource Form P‐37‐24838. On‐file at the South Coastal Information Center. 2003c Archaeological Resource Form P‐37‐24839. On‐file at the South Coastal Information Center. 2003d Archaeological Resource Form P‐37‐24840. On‐file at the South Coastal Information Center. 2006 Cultural Resources Survey of the Tulloch Property, Santa Ysabel, California Prepared by ASM Affiliates. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐11216.

Hector, S., and Brewster, A. 2002 San Dieguito River Valley Inventory of Archaeological Resources Prepared by ASM Affiliates. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐11623.

Hedges, K. 1975 Notes on the Kumeyaay: A Problem of Identification. The Journal of California Anthropology 2(1):71‐83.

Hicks, F. N. 1963 Ecological Aspects of Aboriginal Culture in the Western Yuman Area. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA

Hill, J. J. 1927 The History of Warner’s Ranch and Its Environs. John Treanor and Young & McCallister, Los Angeles, California.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Langdon, M. 1975 Kamia and Kumeyaay: A Linguistic Perspective. The Journal of California Anthropology 2(1):64‐70.

Lauko, K., and Carrel, M. 2005 Cultural Resource Survey Results for Cingular Communications Facility Candidate. SD‐266‐01 (McCune Residence) 1210 Lakedale Road, Santa Ysabel, San Diego County, California Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐10059.

LeMenager, C. R. 1989 Ramona and Round About: A History of San Diego County’s Little Known Back Country. Eagle Peak Publishing Company, Ramona, California. 1992 Julian City and Cuyamaca Country: A History and Guide to the Past and Present. Eagle Peak Publishing Company, Ramona, California.

Los Angeles Times 1923 Ranch Owners Offer Version—Plea for Indian Presents Another Side—Santa Ysabel Holders Claim Valid Grant—Charity in Past Not Rule for Future. March 25, 1923: II20.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 6‐3 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation References

1925 Indians Fight for Lands—Sue to Regain Reservation in San Diego County; Mission and Ancient Bells Involved. December 5, 1925: A6. 1932 Indians Padre Lies at Rest. November 24: A8.

Luomala, K. 1978 Tipai‐Ipai. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 592‐608. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Meltzer, D.J. 2004 Peopling of North America. In (Ed. A.R. Gillespie, S.C Porter, and B.F. Atwater) Developments in Quaternary Science Volume 1: The Quaternary Period in the United States. Elsiever, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Mirro, M. 2005a Cultural Resources Survey of Participating Parcels in the Greater Julian‐Central Julian Area (Downtown, Wynola, and Volcan) Prepared by Applied Earthworks Inc. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐09488. 2005b Cultural Resources Survey of Participating Parcels in the Greater Julian‐Central Julian Area (Downtown, Wynola, and Volcan) With Updated Potential Effects and Mitigation of Identified Cultural Resources Prepared by Applied Earthworks Inc. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐09602.

Morrison, L.L. 1962 Warner: The Man and the Ranch. The Author, Los Angeles, California.

Moss, M. and J. Erlandson 2013 Waterfowl and Lunate Crescents in Western North America: The Archaeology of the Pacific Flyway. Journal of World Prehistory 26(3).

Moyer, C. C. 1969 Historic Ranchos of San Diego. Edited by Richard F. Pourade. Union‐Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California.

Noah, A. 2008 Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Santa Ysabel Indian Reservation Portion of the Santa Ysabel SR 79 all Underground Alternative of the Proposed SDG&E Sunrise Powerlink Prepared by Gallegos and Associates. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐12048.

Noah, A., and Gallegos, D. 2008 Final Class III Archaeological Inventory for the SDG&E Sunrise Powerlink Project, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California Prepared by Gallegos and Associates. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐12044.

Norris, R. M., and R. W. Webb 1990 Geology of California. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Peterson, R. T. 1961 A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 6‐4 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation References

Piek, L. 2007 Archaeological Resource Form P‐37‐30208. On‐file at the South Coastal Information Center.

Piek, L, B. Spelts, B. Linton, and G. Kitchen 2007 Archaeological Resource Form P‐37‐29089. On‐file at the South Coastal Information Center.

Potter, E. 2009 Cultural Resources Survey for the SDG&E Pole Replacement Project in Santa Ysabel, San Diego County Prepared by ASM Affiliates. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐12484.

Pourade, R.F. 1960 The Explorers: the History of San Diego. Union‐Tribune Publishing, San Diego. 1961 Time of the Bells: the History of San Diego. Union‐Tribune Publishing, San Diego. 1963 The Silver Dons: the History of San Diego. Union‐Tribune Publishing, San Diego. 1964 The Glory Years: the History of San Diego. Union‐Tribune Publishing, San Diego. 1965 Gold in the Sun: the History of San Diego. Union‐Tribune Publishing, San Diego.

Quinn, C. R. 1964 The Story of the Mission Santa Ysabel. Elena Quinn, Downey, California.

Rawls, J. J. and W. Bean 2003 California: An Interpretive History. Eighth Edition. McGraw Hill. San Francisco, California.

Rick, T.C., J.M. Erlandson, and R.L. Vellanoweth 2001 Paleocoastal Marine Fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Perspectives from Daisy Cave, California. American Antiquity 66:595‐613.

Rick, T.C., J.M. Erlandson, R.L. Vellanoweth, and T.J. Braje 2005 From Pliesticoene Mariners to Complex Hunter Gatherers: The Archaeology of the California Channel Islands. Journal of World Prehistory 19: 169‐228.

Rosenberg, S. 2009 Cultural Resources Review; Wood to Steel Pole Conversion TL 637, ETS #7593 Prepared by E2M. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐13665. 2010 ETS #8358; TL 685 Warners to Santa Ysabel Wood to Steel Pole Replacement Cultural Resources Inventory Report‐ Revised Prepared by HDR/E2M. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐13553.

Rush, P.S. 1965 Some Old Ranchos and Adobes. Neyenesch Printers, San Diego, California.

San Diego County 1928 Aerial Photograph 36‐C3. On file at San Diego County Cartographic Services, San Diego, California. A

San Diego County Department of Recreation (County DPR) and Julian Historical Society 2006 Rancho Santa Ysabel (Presentation Outline). File: Santa Ysabel—Santa Ysabel Presentation. On file at the History Office of the County of San Diego Department of Recreation, San Diego, California.

San Diego Natural History Museum Botany Department 2016 San Diego County Plant Atlas. Online Document, http://www.sdplantatlas.org/. Accessed April 20, 2016.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 6‐5 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation References

San Diego Union 1925 Seek to Oust Indians from Ancient Chapel—Title is Claimed by Owners of Santa Ysabel Ranch; Courts to Intervene. May 4: 5.

Santa Ana Register 1926 Golden Bells of Mission Stolen. November 19: 2.

Sherman, L. 2001 A History of North San Diego County: From Mission to Millennium. Heritage Media Group. Carlsbad, California.

Shipek, F.C. 1982 Kumeyaay Socio‐Political Structure. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(2): 296‐303

Spier, L. 1923 Southern Diegueño Customs. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 20:294‐358.

Stebbins, R. C. 1966 A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

SWCA 2008 Final Cultural Resources Survey of Alternatives for the Sunrise Powerlink Project in Imperial, Orange, and San Diego Counties, California Prepared by SWCA. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐11977.

Tennessen, K. 2011 ETS #20703; Cultural Resources Survey for Road Work to Pole P17807 Project, Santa Ysabel, San Diego County Prepared by HDR. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐13644.

True, D.L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3):255‐263. 1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Monograph, University of California, Los Angeles. 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978. Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1‐30.

True, D.L., and E, Beemer 1982 Two Milling Stone Inventories from Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(2):233‐261.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service 1993 Archaeological Report Short Form Inaja Memorial Picnic Ground Reconstruction Prepared by USDA Forest Service. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐ 07616.

United States Department of the Interior 1926 Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1903 Ramona, California. 15’ series (1:62,500) Topographic Quadrangle Map. Surveyed 1900‐01).

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 6‐6 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation References

1939 Santa Ysabel, California. 15’ series (1:62,500) Topographic Quadrangle Map. Surveyed 1939. 1960 Santa Ysabel, California. 7.5’ series (1:24,000) Topographic Quadrangle Map. Based on 1954 Aerial Photographs, Field Checked 1960, Photo‐Inspected 1988. 1988 Santa Ysabel, California. 7.5’ series (1:24,000) Topographic Quadrangle Map. Based on 1954 Aerial Photographs, Field Checked 1960, Photo‐revised 1988.

Wade, S.A., S. R. Van Wormer, and H. Thompson 2009 240 Years of Ranching: Historical Research, Field Surveys, Oral Interviews, Significance Criteria, and Management Recommendations for Ranching Districts and Sites in the San Diego Region. Prepared by the Colorado Desert District of California State Parks.

Walker Jr., N. 1974 Archaeological Survey of Wynola Estates Santa Ysabel, California Prepared by Archaeological Research, Inc. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐01652.

Warren, C. N. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(2):168‐185. 1987 The San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In San Dieguito‐La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D.R. Gallegos, pp. 73‐85. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1, San Diego.

Warren, C.N., G. Siegler, and F. Dittmer 1998 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. Unpublished draft report. ASM Affiliates.

Weber, F.J. 1975 California’s Caminito Real. California Historical Quarterly 54(1):63‐75.

Wheaton, P. P. 1899 Map of the Rancho Santa Ysabel, San Diego County, California, Containing 17,780 acres. On File at the County of San Diego Cartographic Services Department, San Diego, California.

White, R.C. 1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 48, No. 2:91‐194.

Whittaker, J. 2009a ETS #8253; Cultural Resources Survey for the Replacement of Three Distribution Poles in Ramona, San Diego County, California Prepared by E2M. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐13708. 2009b ETS #8114; Cultural Resources Survey for the Replacement of Five Distribution Poles in Santa Ysabel, San Diego County, California Prepared by E2M. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐13726. 2009c Archaeological Resource Update Form P‐37‐29089. On‐file at the South Coastal Information Center.

Williams, B. 2013 Archaeological Survey and Job Walk for the SDG&E C222 Reconductor and Wood to Steel Project, Santa Ysabel, San Diego County Prepared by ASM Affiliates. Report on‐file at the South Coastal Information Center, Report# SD‐14979.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 6‐7 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 List of Preparers and Persons and Organizations Contacted

Preparers:

Karolina Chmiel, MA ICF International, GIS Archaeologist

Timothy Yates, PhD ICF International, Historian/Architectural Historian

Nara Cox, BA ICF International, Field Director

J. Tait Elder, MA, RPA ICF International, Principal Investigator

Persons and Organizations Contacted:

San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation

San Diego History Center

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 7‐1 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 List of Mitigation Measures and Design Considerations

 The County of San Diego’s preferred management of cultural resources is avoidance and preservation incorporated into project designs. However, in the event that ground‐disturbing activities are proposed in the vicinity of documented, relocated archaeological sites, DPR will review this document to determine whether the proposed activities will occur within the boundary of any sites. If so, and the proposed activities cannot be redesigned to avoid the cultural resources, DPR will conduct subsurface archaeological testing to determine the CRHR and/or NRHP eligibility of the archaeological sites in question. These investigations will be monitored by Native American representatives. Depending on the results of the testing, mitigation measures—developed in consultation with the affiliated tribes—may be necessary.

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Ysabel December 2016 8‐1 Nature Center, San Diego County, California ICF 00041.16 Appendix A Records Search Confirmation South Coastal Information Center San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92182-5320 Office: (619) 594-5682 www.scic.org [email protected]

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM RECORDS SEARCH

Company: ICF International Company Representative: Karolina Chmiel Date Processed: 2/16/2016 Project Identification: County Parks and Rec: Santa Ysabel Nature Center #00041.16 Search Radius: 1 mile

Historical Resources: YES Trinomial and Primary site maps have been reviewed. All sites within the project boundaries and the specified radius of the project area have been plotted. Copies of the site record forms have been included for all recorded sites. Previous Survey Report Boundaries: YES Project boundary maps have been reviewed. National Archaeological Database (NADB) citations for reports within the project boundaries and within the specified radius of the project area have been included. Historic Addresses: YES A map and database of historic properties (formerly Geofinder) has been included. Historic Maps: YES The historic maps on file at the South Coastal Information Center have been reviewed, and copies have been included.

Summary of SHRC Approved CHRIS IC Records Search Elements

RSID: 2232 RUSH: yes Hours: 1 Spatial Features: 109 Address-Mapped Shapes: no Digital Database Records: 0 Quads: 1 Aerial Photos: 0 PDFs: Yes PDF Pages: 359

This is not an invoice. Please pay from the monthly billing statement Appendix B Native American Coordination

Appendix C Resource Location Map

CONFIDENTIAL

Appendix D DPR 523 Site Record Forms

CONFIDENTIAL

Appendix E Shovel Probe Data ST_Num Results Date_ Matrix_1 Matrix_1_Depth Matrix_2 Matrix_2_Depth Termination Reason 3 Negative 3/30/2016 Dark brown fine sandy silt, 110 cm Terminal loose compaction, slightly moist,- Strat 1 2 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-50 Terminal 4 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Terminal 1 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 with small sub 50+ Sterile angular quartz nodules in 0- 10 5 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-50 Terminal 6 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-50 cm Terminal 7 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 50+ Sterile 9 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1, moderate 0-50 cm Terminal compaction 8 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-50 Terminal 10 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-80 cm Terminal 11 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 with small gravels 70+ Sterile 12 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-70 Terminal 13 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-75 cm Terminal 14 Negative 3/30/2016 Stratum 1 few pebbles 70+ Sterile 17 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-75 Terminal 16 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-80 Terminal 19 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-70 cm Terminal 18 Negative 3/30/2016 Stratum 1 fewer gravels 70+ Sterile 20 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-47 ICF at 47cm 21 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-50 cm Icf 24 Negative 3/30/2016 Dark reddish brown clayey 0-50 cm Terminal silt with occasional quartz granules. Clearly decomposing granite. Strat 2 22 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-23 Strat 2 23-50 Terminal 23 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 with more clay 50+ Sterile component 35-50. 3" angular cobble noted at 35 25 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-23 cm Strat 2 23-50 cm Terminal 27 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 2 0-50 cm Terminal 26 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-80 Terminal 29 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-70 cm Terminal 28 Negative 3/30/2016 Starta 1 to impenetrable 60 Sterile and impenetrable cobble layer cobble layer at 55 cm 31 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-75 Terminal 30 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-80 Terminal 32 Negative 3/30/2016 Strata 1 very few pebbles 70+ Sterile 33 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-75 cm Terminal 36 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-21 Strat 2 21-50 cm Terminal 34 Negative 3/30/2016 Strat 1 0-20 Strat 2 20-50 Terminal 35 Negative 3/30/2016 Strata 1 30 Strata 2 DG 30-50+ Sterile 37 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-18 cm Strat 2 18-50 cm Terminal 38 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-80 Terminal 39 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 transitioning to strat 50+ Sterile 2 at 45 40 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-22 cm Loose Strat 2, slopewash22-50 cm Terminal 43 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-34 cm Strat 2 34-50 cm Terminal 41 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-80 Terminal 42 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 into 2 at 30 30+ Sterile very compact 44 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-47 Strat 2 47-50 Terminal 47 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-70 cm Terminal 46 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-40 Strat 2 40-50 Terminal 45 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 with incresing clay 70+ Sterile after 50 48 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 2 0-5 cm Undecomposed bedrock encountered at 5 cm 49 Negative 3/31/2016 Decomposed granite 0-10 DG 51 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 2, grading into 0-38 cm Decomposing bedrock decomposing bedrock 50 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 40 Strat 2 60+ Sterile 52 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-58 Tree root at 58 53 Negative Strat 1 0-38 cm Strat 2, grading into 38-53decomposing cm graniteDecomposing granite 56 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-70 cm Terminal 54 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-70 Terminal 55 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1, some small plastic 70+ Sterile fragments 10-30 57 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1, dry 0-70 cm Terminal 59 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-75 cm Terminal 58 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-80 Terminal 60 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1, five 2-4" angular 70+ Sterile cobbles in 20-30 61 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-75 cm Terminal 62 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-70 Terminal 63 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-70 cm Terminal 66 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1, dry 0-70 cm Terminal 64 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 70+ Sterile 65 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-70 Terminal 67 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1, dry 0-70 cm Terminal 70 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-75 cm Terminal 68 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 70+ Sterile 69 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-80 Terminal 71 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1, very dry and very 0-65 cm Densely compacted. densely compacted with depth. 73 Negative 3/31/2016 Very dry and compact strat 0-20 Decomposed granite20-30 Decomposed granite 1 74 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 2, becoming 0-30 cm Decomposing bedrock decomposing bedrock 72 Negative 3/31/2016 Strat 1 0-35 Strat 2 35-50+ Sterile 75 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-22 cm Strat 2, bedrock at base22-41 cm Dg 76 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-14 cm Stat 2, ends at bedrock14-37 cm Dg 77 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-15 cm Strat 2 to bedrock 15-38 cm Dg 78 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-13 cm Strat 2, bedrock at base13-33 cm Dg 79 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-9 cm Strat 2 9-29 cm Dg 80 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-19 cm Strat 2, to bedrock 19-32 cm Dg 81 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-7 cm Strat 2, bedrock at base7-17 cm Bedrock 82 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-23 cm Strat 2 23-41 cm Terminal 83 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-27 cm Strat 2 27-42 cm Dg 84 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-24 cm Strat 2 24-41 cm Dg 85 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-21 cm Strat 2 21-28 cm Dg 86 Negative 4/12/2016 Strat 1 0-17 cm Strat 2 17-38 cm Dg 2-1 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-100 cm 100 cm 2-4 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-27 cm Strat 2 27-34 cm Db 2-3 Negative 8/23/2016 Stat 1 100 cm Sterile soil STP 2-2 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 60cm + Sterile soil 2-7 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-46 cm Strat 2 46-52 Db STP 2-5 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 60+ cm 2-10 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-75 cm Td T.S. 2-6 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1, rodent bioturbation 0-60cm 60cm depth south wall at 10cm

2-13 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-8 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 60 cm Sterile soil 2-14 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-28 cm Strat 2 28-32 cm Dg 2-13 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 disturbed upper 60cm+ Sterile soil 30cm from cattle 2-15 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-65 cm Td S.T. 3-9 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1; hit D.G. At 58cm. 58cm Hit top layer of D.G. 2-16 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-34 cm Strat 2 34-45 cm Dg 2-19 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-32 cm Strat 2 Td 2-17 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat1 Strat 2 at 35-40cm Soil change to DG S.T.P. 2-18 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1; D.G. At 16cm D.G. At 16cm 2-20 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-24 cm Strat 2 24-33 cm Dg 2-21 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 top 5 cm Strat 2 DG with some mottled Strat 1 soilBedrock after 5cm and DG after 5cm. Sterile soil 2-23 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-5 cm Strat 2 5-8 cm Dg S.T.P. 2-22 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1; D.G. At 12cm 12cm Hit D.G. At 12cm 2-25 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 0-28 cm Strat 2 28-35 cm Dg 2-24 Negative 8/23/2016 Strat 1 to 5cm Strat 2 at 5 cm cobbles and DG DG and cobbles terminated 10-15cm 2-29 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-41 cm Strat 2 41-51 cm Dg 2-27 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1, hit D.G. At 7cm 7cm Hit DG. depth 2-28 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 30cm Strat 2 30+cm Terminated @ 40cm sterile soil and soil change to dg 2-30 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-24 cm Strat 2 24-32 cm Dg 2-33 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-18 cm Strat 2 18-22 cm Dg 2-32 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 25cm Strat 2 25cm + Sterile soil change 2-34 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-52 cm Strat 2 52-55 cm Dg 2-31 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 40cm Hard pan D. G. 2-35 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-36 cm Strat 2 36-42 cm Dg 2-36 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-4 cm Strat 2 4-7 cm Dg 2-37 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 30cm Strat 2 30cm+ DG at 30cm 2-39 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-18 cm Strat 2 18-26 cm Dg 2-38 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 37cm D.G. Hard pan. 2-40 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 40cm Strat 2 dg 50cm+ DG at 40cm. Max depth 50cm 2-41 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-42 cm Strat 2 42-50 cm Dg 2-43 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 40cm Strat.2 50+cm Sterile soil and soil change 2-42 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 40cm Hit top of D.G. 2-44 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-65 cm Td 2-47 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-70 cm Td 2-46 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 50cm Strat 2 50cm+ Sterile soil and soil change 2-48 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-45 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 60cm 60cm depth 2-49 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-65 cm Td 2-50 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 with much 60cm+ Sterile soil bioturbation 2-52 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-51 Negative 8/24/2016 Strat 1 60cm Hit 60cm 2-55 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-53 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 60+cm Sterile soil 2-54 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 60cm 60cm depth 2-56 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-28 cm Reddish brown clayey28-55 silt, cmdry, PleistocenePre-holocene alluvium 2-57 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 60+ cm Sterile soil 2-59 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-58 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 Hit Strat 2 at 60cm Hit Strat 2 at 60cm 2-61 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-60 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 60 cm transitioning to Strat 2 Sterile to 60 2-63 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-70 cm Td 2-62 Negative Strat 1; 0-30cm 0-30cm Strat 2; 30-58cm 30-58cm Hard pan D.G. 2-65 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-64 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 Transitioning to Strat 2 at 60 cm TD 2-67 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-65 cm Td 2-66 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60cm 60cm depth 2-69 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-71 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-33 Strat 3, reddish brown clayey silt, dense,Pre-human older alluvium 2-68 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 50cm 60+cm Td 2-70 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 Hit Strat 2 at 25cm depth Hit top of Strat 2 at 25cm 2-75 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 35cm Strat 2 dg Td 2-76 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 Strat 1 30cm Hit top of Strat 2 at 30cm 2-78 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-77 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 Top of Strat 2 at 33cm Top of Strat 2 at 33cm 79 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-55 Strat 3 55+ 2-84 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm 2-72 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-23 cm Strat 3 23-34 cm Pre- human 2-73 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-21 cm Strat 3 21-32 cm Pre-human 2-74 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-32 cm Strat 3 32-41 cm Pre-human Tt-1 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-18 cm Strat 3 18-25 cm Pre-human 2-80 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat. 1 0-60 cm Td 2-82 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-83 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td 2-85 Negative 8/25/2016 Strat 1 0-60 cm Td

Appendix F Geotechnical Bore Monitoring Observations

Core 1 Location Core 2 Location Core 3 Location Core 4 Location Core 5 Location Core 6 Location Core 7 Location Core 8 Location Max 3.5 feet Road 5 feet Road 5 feet Road 5 feet south of 20 feet north of 12 feet north of 15 feet north of 15 feet north of Depth fenceline fenceline fenceline fenceline fenceline in in in in footprint, footprint, footprint, footprint, working working working in center clockwise clockwise clockwise of "clock"

0-5' bsl Standard CAL 14/17/23 Drill only Standard 7/12/15 CAL 5/6/7 CAL-19/27/43 CAL 3/5/8 Drill only 9/11/11 1.5-2.5' bsl brown silty sand, 1-4' bsl reddish 2-2.5 bsl, moist brown sandy silt with 2-3.5' bsl Topsoil 0-3 ft bsl, brown 0-4' bsl brown 0-2' bsl brown brown silty 1-2' no change brown silty sand mica, transitioning to sandier silt at reddish brown silty sand "colluvium" silty silty sand with transitioning to with grey clay 2.75' bsl colluvium with (colluvium) sand with mica mica topsoil brown silty sand nodules mica and DG topsoil 2-3' indicates rill granules. transitioning to Borderline silty yellow brown sand with slight DG at 2.5 'bsl clay component 5-10' bsl N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard 3/3/1 Standard CAL 14/18/25 Drill only 15/24/28 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-6.5' bsl very dry 5-6.5' bsl, 6-6.5' bsl brown 2-8' bsl brown and uniform silty gradual "colluvium" silty "colluvium" silty sand very fine transition to sand with mica, sand with mica grained "looks coarser greyer transitions to like surface soil" DG more compact indicates approximately 4' disturbance bsl Standard Drill only 12/11/14 *transition to 7.5-9' bsl brown 8-10' bsl yellow coarser at "colluvium" silty DG approximately 8" sand with mica, bsl transitions to very weathered yellow DG (almost a soil) at 8.5' bsl 10-15' bsl N/A N/A N/A N/A CAL 9/11/13 Standard 39/50 CAL 50 for 6" Drill only for 4" N/A N/A N/A N/A 11-11.5' bsl 10-11' bsl same yellow/red/black bsl greenish coarser brown coarse grey DG DG to 13 ft, solid grey very silty sand and rock below compact DG small DG nodules *transition to coarser at approximately 13' bsl 15-20' bsl N/A N/A N/A N/A Standard N/A N/A N/A 17/36/50 for 5" N/A N/A N/A N/A 15-16' bsl Brown N/A N/A N/A silty coarser sand with DG and granite chunks *transition to dominant DG at approximately 17.5 Standard 18/19/18 18-20' bsl Very moist, with DG and Clay component