Cultural Resource Assessment
WesPac LAX Pipeline
Los Angeles County, California USGS Inglewood, Long Beach, South Gate, Torrance and Venice, California Quadrangles
August 2007
Prepared for: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Los Angeles Office 11849 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 101 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (310) 469-6739 Fax: (310) 473-9336
Prepared by:
Companies, Inc. 21 Technology Drive Irvine, California 92618 949–727–9336
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 1
1.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...... 2
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 2
1.2 NATURAL HISTORY ...... 2
1.3 DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...... 2
1.4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PREHISTORY ...... 2
1.5 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION ...... 4
2.0 LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 5
2.1 OVERVIEW ...... 5
2.2 FEDERAL REGULATIONS...... 5
2.3 STATE REGULATIONS...... 6
2.4 LOCAL REGULATIONS ...... 8
3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...... 10
3.1 CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC LANDMARKS...... 10
3.2 THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ...... 11
3.3 CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLGOCIAL INVENTORY ...... 11
3.4 TECHNICAL STUDIES/PREVIOUS SURVEYS...... 12
3.5 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 14
4.0 FIELD SURVEY ...... 15
4.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND COVERAGE ...... 15
4.2 SURVEY RESULTS ...... 15
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...... 16
6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES...... 18
6.1 MITIGATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS DUE TO RELATED IMPACTS.....18
- i -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
6.2 AVOIDANCE ...... 18
6.3 PHYSICAL DEMARCATION AND PROTECTION ...... 18
6.4 CREW EDUCATION...... 19
6.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING ...... 19
6.6 PALEONTOLOGIC MONITORING...... 20
6.7 NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORING...... 22
6.8 FORMAL COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA SECTION 15064.5 AND 15126.4
AND SECTION 106 OF THE NHPA...... 23
7.0 MITIGATION FOR RESOURCE ...... 23
7.1 MITIGATION FOR RESOURCES DISCOVERED DURING CONSTRUCTION ...... 23
7.2 PROTECTION OF RESOURCES DURING FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION ...... 23
7.3 SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 24
7.4 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR BUILT ENVIRONMENT ...... 25
8.0 REFERENCES ...... 26
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Cultural Resource Monitoring Recommendations Map Figure 2 Monitoring Recommendations Map with site locations [restricted access]
APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Descriptions [restricted access] Appendix B Table of Laws & Regulations Governing Cultural Resources Appendix C Native American Consultation
- ii -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include archaeological and historical objects, sites and districts, historic buildings and structures, cultural landscapes, and sites and resources of interest and concern to American culture, and interest groups. The following cultural resource analysis details efforts to determine whether cultural resources exist in areas that could be adversely affected by the project. The significance of any resources that will potentially be affected is assessed. Measures are proposed to mitigate potential adverse effects of the project to any significant resources that are present. Laws, ordinances, and regulations pertinent to the identification, assessment of significance, and mitigation of adverse effects to cultural resources are identified in Section 6, Mitigation Measures; Section 7, Mitigation for Resource; and Section 2, Laws and Regulations Governing Cultural Resources. As part of the field inventory, archaeological field investigations and historic evaluations were undertaken to assess the presence, absence, and/or the extent and significance of specific sites and features. All cultural resources work for this project was carried out under the direct supervision of an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and is consistent with the procedures for compliance with Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The cultural resources personnel who supervised the field survey and prepared the Technical Report are: . Dr. Chris Drover, Principal Investigator . Ms. Shelby Manney, Senior Archaeologist . Mr. David Smith, Senior Archaeologist . Michael Davis, Staff Archaeologist
Dr. Drover meets the professional standards of the Secretary of the Interior for this work (Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service 1983), and is certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists. With few exceptions, the potential effects of any project upon cultural resources in California are evaluated under CEQA. This report will serve as CEQA environmental documentation.
- 1 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
1.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION WesPac Pipelines LLC (WesPac) is proposing construction of an approximately 24-mile jet fuel pipeline between the City of Wilmington and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The pipeline alignment generally follows existing streets, but in two locations traverses small undeveloped areas. TRC Solutions, Inc. (TRC) conducted a cultural resource records search and survey in support of the study, to determine the potential for impacts to significant cultural resources.
1.2 NATURAL HISTORY The project site is located within the western Los Angeles Basin. The Basin itself is relatively flat and crossed by a number of perennial rivers (Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Rio Hondo). These resources, in addition to the littoral and pelagic resources of the ocean, provide a relatively large native population at the time of historic contact. The climate of the area consists of hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters, and is characterized as Mediterranean. During the summer, winds are predominantly from the west, cooling otherwise hot days. Precipitation is mainly a result of winter dominant, frontal storms from the northwest, although occasional summer thundershowers result from damp air intruding from the southern (Gulf of Mexico to Sea of Cortez) monsoon season.
1.3 DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA The primary source of surface and subsurface disturbance is urban construction. Thus, the majority of all surface prehistoric and protohistoric cultural resources have been destroyed; so, the only surface resources in the area include historic properties, to which less than significant impact is anticipated.
1.4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PREHISTORY The prehistory of coastal southern California has been described by a number of authors who seem to agree on at least four major prehistoric periods (Wallace 1955; Warren 1968; Koerper; and Drover 1983). These four sequential periods of time, sometimes called Horizons and sometimes Traditions, are each characterized by time sensitive artifacts. Therefore, the periods are not arbitrary, but likely reflect material/cultural changes at those times. The earliest occupations of the southern California coast are debated to begin as early as
- 2 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
50,000 years before present(B.P.) (Bada et al. 1974). The earliest radiocarbon dates, however, were derived from Los Angeles Man and Laguna Woman at 23,600 and 17,150 B.P. respectively (Berger et al. 1971). Unfortunately, little is known of the material culture in finds of this antiquity. The earliest archaeological culture known in any detail is that of San Dieguito, named after the drainage of the same name near Del Mar, California, where implements dating to 8,000 B.P. were found. Although the subsistence strategy of this tradition is unknown, Warren (1968:2) has inferred a hunting economy (cf. Koerper and Drover 1983; Drover 1983). Typical artifacts include percussion flaked implements, elongated knives, domed scrapers, teshoa flakes, crescentics, and an absence of millingstone. The San Dieguito culture is defined primarily from its single type site, the Harris Site of San Diego County, CA-SDi-149 (Warren 1966).
After San Dieguito the next prehistoric period for coastal southern California is termed “Millingstone” or “Encinitas” by Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968), respectively. The Millingstone Horizon or Encinitas Tradition are very similar as described by each author, and have a time span beginning about 7,000 to 8,000 B.P. and ending between 3,000 and 4,000 B.P. The onset of Holocene climatic conditions may have brought about the cultural changes associated with this period. Processing tools like manos and metates (millingstone) reflect an increased dependence on plant foods. Projectiles are rare but, when found, suggest the use of the atlatl (or throwing stick). The material culture characteristic of this period is longer-lived the further one travels south of Santa Barbara.
The third period following Encinitas, or Millingstone, is known as the “Intermediate Horizon” or “Campbell Tradition” by Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968), respectively. This period is strongly represented north of the Los Angeles area and is only suggested in the San Diego area. Numerous smaller projectile points, suggesting increased hunting and the introduction of the use of the bow and arrow, characterize this period. It was during the Intermediate Horizon, or Campbell Tradition, that true maritime exploitation and occupation of the Channel Islands flourished (Meighan 1959). The duration of this period is roughly 3,000 to 1,000 B.P.
The final prehistoric period for the coastal southern California cultural chronology begins about 1,000 B.P. and ends with the overland exploration of Portolá in 1769. The protohistoric groups continue to expand the broad-based subsistence patterns that began during previous periods. After the arrival of the Spanish, native groups were referred to by the names of the Spanish Missions nearest their linguistic group. Hence the linguistic dialect nearest Mission San Diego became known as Diegueño, those nearest San Luis Rey de Francia became Luiseño, those near San Juan Capistrano became Juaneño and those near Mission San Gabriel became Gabrieliño. The western Los Angeles Basin was occupied by both the Chumash and Gabrieliño cultures. The term “Canaliño” (Rogers 1929) is often used when referring to the protohistoric aspects of Chumash culture. The Chumash groups occupied the territory between Estero Beach in the north, Topanga Canyon in the south, and inland to the edge of the San Joaquin Valley. They also
- 3 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
occupied the islands of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa. The Gabrieliño occupied the coastal area from Santa Monica south to San Juan Capistrano in Orange County, inland to the San Gabriel Mountains, controlling Santa Catalina and possibly the San Clemente Islands. Trade networks served to distribute the rich terrestrial and marine resources from the ecologically varied environments among the various groups. The population of all the Chumash just prior to contact with Europeans was probably about 15,000 (Blackburn 1975:8), with a large proportion of them clustered along the shores and mesas of Santa Barbara Channel. Villages of both groups consisted of large hemispherical dwellings constructed of bent poles covered with thatching, ordinarily containing from 50 to 100 people; larger villages among the Chumash may have housed up to 1,000. The Chumash who lived along the south-facing shores of the Pacific developed a unique ocean-going vessel of sewn wooden planks, called a tomol (Kroeber 1925:558; Grant 1978:515; Hudson et al. 1978). The tomol was used for fishing, for hunting sea mammals, and for conducting trade between the mainland and the islands. Due to their intensive exploitation of the maritime environment, the Chumash acquired comparatively complex social and political organization, trade networks, and religious systems. These characteristics were also accompanied by large, almost sedentary populations. All these characteristics are usually attributed to larger agricultural societies elsewhere. Localized varieties of each of these prehistoric periods have been described elsewhere and the present description is designed only to provide general background information.
1.5 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION TRC initiated consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a list of known sacred lands within the project site area and a list of any Most Likely Descendants (MLDs) who may have some knowledge of known cultural resources or Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that may be affected by this undertaking.
Response was received from the NAHC indicating no known TCPs within the project alignment; however, it was recommended that direct contact be made with representatives of specific groups in the area (see Appendix C). Letters to specific tribes were mailed to the specific regional groups at that time.
Only one response was received. It was from Anthony Morales, the MLD and Chairperson of the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Committee. The telephone consultation was conducted between Chris Drover PhD and Mr. Morales on July 3, 2007. During the consultation Mr. Morales expressed concerns about a number of subsurface discoveries of cultural materials made during construction activities in the area. Mr. Morales enumerated such discoveries in the refinery area of Carson, the Dominguez Canyon and Carson Creek. Mr. Morales also mentioned the discovery of inhumations along the Alameda Corridor, Alameda Street. Further mention was made of the recovery of cultural materials during Texaco’s installation of lamp posts near the intersection of Sepulveda
- 4 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
and Alameda, along Alameda Street. Mr. Morales’s closing request was for participation in any monitoring activities that may occur during the project construction.
2.0 LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
2.1 OVERVIEW Cultural resources in the State of California are recognized as non-renewable resources that require management to assure their benefit to present and future Californians. Therefore, cultural resources management work conducted as part of any proposed undertaking by the City of Los Angeles (City) must comply with applicable federal, and/or state, and local regulations designed to protect the City’s rich cultural heritage. Brief descriptions of these regulations are provided below and a table can be found in Appendix B.
2.2 FEDERAL REGULATIONS Although most projects conducted by the City would not be subject to federal regulations pertaining to cultural resources, a brief review of federal law sets the stage for understanding the state and local cultural resources guidelines. CEQA and local City guidelines are then addressed in subsequent sections.
Enacted in 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) has become the foundation and framework for historic preservation in the United States. Briefly, the NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to expand and maintain a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); it establishes an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as an independent federal entity; requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and affords the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that may affect historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the NRHP; and makes the heads of all federal agencies responsible for the preservation of historic properties owned or controlled by their agencies. In addition, the NHPA authorizes funding for state programs with provisions for pass- through funding and participation by local governments. In summary, the NHPA provides the legal framework for most state and local preservation laws.
The National Park Service has issued regulations governing the NRHP (36 CFR 60). Among the topics covered in detail in these regulations are the effects of listing under federal law, definition of key terms (e.g., building, site, structure, and district), nomination procedures, nomination appeals, and removing properties from the NRHP. Importantly, Section 60.4 of the regulations presents the criteria by which historic properties are evaluated for the NRHP.
- 5 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (b) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (c) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR 60.4).
A point to be emphasized is that a historic property does not have to be nominated for, or listed in, the NRHP to be afforded protection under the NHPA. Indeed, most of the properties managed under this and other federal historic-preservation authorities have never been nominated for the NRHP. The significance of a historic district, site, building, structure or object—and thus its required consideration under the law—is determined by the property’s eligibility for the NRHP with respect to the criteria set forth in 36 CFR 60.4.
The NHPA established the Section 106 review procedure to protect historic and archaeological resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP from impacts of projects by a federal agency, projects funded or permitted by a federal agency, or projects located on federally-owned land or Native American-owned land. State Historic Preservation Officers and programs in all states and U.S. territories receive federal funding to carry out the provisions of the NHPA. This funding comes from a yearly appropriation by the legislative branch of the federal government. The NHPA requires that at least 10 percent of funds to the state be passed through to Certified Local Governments; the City is a Certified Local Government.
2.3 STATE REGULATIONS Work conducted as part of any proposed undertaking by the City must comply with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (California 1999). Enacted in 1971, CEQA directs lead agencies to first determine whether a cultural resource is a “historically significant” cultural resource. In the protection and management of the cultural environmental, CEQA guidelines provide definitions and standards for cultural resources management. The term “historical resource” is defined as follows:
(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 (CRHR). (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey should be presumed to be historically or culturally
- 6 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
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, 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 may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a cultural resource should be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR, including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (B) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources . . ., or identified in a historical resources survey . . . does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource [Title 14 CCR Section 15064.5(1)].
The term “unique archaeological resource” has the following meaning under CEQA:
An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. (3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historical event or person [Public Resources General Code Section 21083.2(g)].
A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or unique archaeological resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (California 1999:14). Effects on cultural properties that qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources can be considered adverse if they involve physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.
- 7 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
The cited statutes and guidelines specify how cultural resources are to be managed in the context of projects such as those proposed by the City. Briefly, archival and field surveys must be conducted, and identified cultural resources must be inventoried and evaluated in prescribed ways. Sites that may contain human remains important to Native Americans must be identified and treated in a sensitive manner, consistent with state law (i.e., Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98), as reviewed below:
In the event that human remains are encountered during project development and in accordance with the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the County Coroner must be notified if potentially human bone is discovered. The Coroner will then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she should contact the NAHC by phone within 24 hours, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The NAHC will then designate a MLD with respect to the human remains. The MLD then has the opportunity to recommend to the property owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods.
Prehistoric and historical resources deemed “historically significant” must be considered in project planning and development. As well, any proposed undertaking that may affect “historically significant” cultural resources must be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review and comment prior to project approval by the responsible agency (in this case the City) and prior to construction. Subsequent sections of the CEQA Guidelines detail methods by which significant effects may be mitigated, and discuss procedures for treatment of human remains discovered in the course of project development.
The State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) administers the California Register program. As a recipient of federal funding, the OHP meets the requirements of the NHPA with a SHPO who enforces a designation and protection process, has a qualified historic preservation review commission, maintains a system for surveys and inventories, and provides for adequate public participation in its activities. As the recipient of federal funds that require pass-through funding to local governments, the OHP administers the Certified Local Government program for the State of California. The OHP also administers the California Register of Historical Landmarks and California Points of Local Historical Interest programs (APPS 2003:10).
2.4 LOCAL REGULATIONS The City of Los Angeles is currently developing guidelines and regulations for the preservation of cultural resources, but currently there are no city-specific regulations. Instead, the City has opted to adopt CEQA Statutes and Guidelines as its own, per the City of Los Angeles Environmental Quality Guidelines, adopted July 31, 2002 (see above CEQA guidelines). An outline of CEQA guidelines relating to cultural resources is available in Section D of the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide of 2006, enforced by the
- 8 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
Environmental Affairs Department. Referenced in that document is Section 6-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, which requires that “grading, excavation, or other ground disturbing activities for a public project be halted in the area of a paleontological or archaeological find, until such time as a resource expert can review the find, determine its significance, and if required, determine appropriate mitigation measures.”
Additionally, the City has adopted guidelines relating to the treatment of historic resources. Per Chapter 3 of the Cultural Heritage Masterplan, a cultural resource may be considered historically relevant if it meets any of the following criteria:
1) It is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Properties (see criteria above); 2) it qualifies as a California Point of Historical Interest; 3) it is a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument, as determined by the Cultural Heritage Commission; or 4) it falls within the boundaries of a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ).
The Cultural Heritage Commission, established by the Cultural Heritage Ordinance of 1962, employs the following guidelines to determine a resource’s eligibility for status as a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument:
Any site (including significant trees or any other plant life located thereon), building, or structure of particular historic or cultural significance to the City of Los Angeles, such as historic structures or sites in which broad cultural, political, economic, or social history of the nation, state, or community is reflected or exemplified or which are identified with historic personages or with important events in the main currents of national, state, or local history, or which embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period style or method construction, or a notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age.
Sites within an HPOZ must meet one of the following criteria:
1) Adds to the historic architectural qualities or historic associations for which a property is significant because it was present during the period of significance, and possesses historic integrity reflecting its character at that time; 2) owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristics, represents an established feature of the neighborhood, community, or City; 3) retaining the structure would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the City.
If a cultural resource is deemed to be historically relevant by local, state, or federal standards, it must conform to the CEQA Guidelines.
- 9 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
3.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Preparation for the cultural resources field survey consisted of an inventory and overview of all known cultural resources within the study area. This study provided the basis for evaluating project impacts and assessing current survey requirements and cultural resources likely to be present in the project area. The South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCI), the OHP’s Website for California Historical Landmarks, and the National Park Services’ database for NRHP were utilized to conduct a record search of previously recorded sites and surveys, as well as National and Historical Landmarks. The investigation included a designated one-half mile radius of Area of Potential Effect (APE) surrounding the proposed alignments.
3.1 CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC LANDMARKS TRC located three California Historic Landmarks (CHLs) within 300 feet of the pipeline alignment. Descriptions of each landmark are provided below, their mapped locations are provided in Figure 1. The historic resources identified below occur in the area of the proposed pipeline, but not within the pipeline route or construction area. As such, none of the identified historical resources would be directly impacted by the construction of the proposed pipeline. Indirect impacts, such as those caused by ground borne vibration, which is typically caused by pile driving, blasting, and similar activities, would not be required for the construction of the pipeline. Thus, indirect impacts on historic resources during project construction would also be less than significant. Due to their distance from the project, there is no mitigation needed for any of the historic landmarks listed below.
No. 147 Banning Park General Phineas Banning, State Senator and pioneer in the development of transportation in Southern California, built this house in the 1850s, soon after founding the town of Wilmington. He and his family lived here until his death in 1885. In 1927 the property was deeded to the City. Location: 401 East M St. at Banning Place, Wilmington.
No. 169 Drum Barracks Established in 1862, Drum Barracks became the United States military headquarters for Southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico. It was a garrison and base for supplies, and a terminus for camel pack trains operated by the Army until 1863. Abandoned in 1866, the site remains a landmark of the Civil War in California. Location: 1053 Cary St. (corner of Cary and Opp), Wilmington.
No. 718 Site of the Initial United States Air Meet About a half mile southeast of this location, on Dominquez Hill in historic Rancho San
- 10 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
Pedro, the first air meet in the United States was held January 10 to 20, 1910. This area has evolved into one of the world's leading aviation-industrial centers. Location: 18501 S. Wilmington Ave, Carson.
3.2 THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES TRC located three NRHP properties within 300 feet of the pipeline alignment. Two, Banning Park and the Drum Barracks, are described above under CHL listings (Figure 1). The other is a hangar facility adjacent to LAX (Figure 1). The historic resources identified below occur in the area of the proposed pipeline, but not within the pipeline route or construction area. As such, none of the identified historical resources would be directly impacted by the construction of the proposed pipeline. Indirect impacts, such as those caused by ground borne vibration, which is typically caused by pile driving, blasting, and similar activities, would not be required for the construction of the pipeline. Thus, indirect impacts on historic resources during project construction would also be less than significant.
Banning House or The Gen. Phineas Banning Residence (NRHP #71000160; ca. 1850–1899) This single domestic dwelling was added to the NRHP in 1971 for its significant Late Victorian style architecture. The building is located at 401 East M St., Wilmington and currently serves as an interpretive center/museum.
Hangar One (NRHP #92000959; ca. 1925–1949) This building was added to the NRHP in 1992 for its significance to air-related transportation. The hangar is located at 5701 W. Imperial Hwy., Los Angeles, and is currently in use as an air-related hangar.
Drum Barracks (NRHP #71000161 ca. 1850–1874) This building was added to the NRHP in 1971 for its significance to the American Civil War. The barracks are located at 1053 Carey St., Wilmington and are currently not in use.
3.3 CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLGOCIAL INVENTORY The California Historic Resources Information System maintains regional offices that manage site records for known cultural resource locations and related technical studies. The regional office for Los Angeles County is the (SCCI) at California State University at Fullerton. TRC conducted a review of site records and technical studies that included or were conducted adjacent to the WesPac alignment. Records show that 27 technical studies have been conducted on or immediately adjacent to the WesPac alignment, as summarized below. Additionally, nine archaeological sites have been recorded in
- 11 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
proximity to the alignment, as summarized in Appendix A (There is restricted access to Appendix A due to confidential site information).
3.4 TECHNICAL STUDIES/PREVIOUS SURVEYS The Alameda Corridor Transportation project cultural resources survey (Wlodarski 1992) included a short segment of the alignment near its southern terminus between Dominguez Channel and Henry Ford Avenue. No cultural resources were identified in proximity to the WesPac alignment during that survey.
Romani and Larson surveyed a narrow tract of land adjacent to the WesPac alignment along Opp Street in 2000. No cultural resources were identified in proximity to the alignment during that investigation.
LSA (Padon 1992) surveyed a large parcel for the Arco Refinery on the east side of Wilmington between Sepulveda Boulevard on the south, East 223rd Street on the north, and Pacific Street on the east. A large ethnographic prehistoric site is known to exist east and west of Wilmington Avenue just north of Sepulveda Blvd (see LAN 98 site description).
In 1991, several hundred yards of the WesPac alignment was surveyed during a survey for a proposed Shell Oil inter-refinery line (LSA Associates, 1991). The areas surveyed are along the west side of Wilmington Avenue, just north of Sepulveda Boulevard, extending southward to the SFRR line. LAN-98 is noted in this report also and monitoring of the proposed pipeline is recommended. Archaeological monitoring for the Shell Pipeline was conducted in 1992 (Charroin), resulting in the recovery of numerous archaeological and paleontological specimens from areas immediately west of Wilmington Avenue (see Mitigation for Resource section 7 for recommended measures).
Weil (1981) surveyed several hundred acres adjacent to the east side of Wilmington Avenue between E. Victoria Street and E. University Drive. No cultural resources were recorded in proximity to the WesPac alignment during that survey.
Weil (1981a) conducted a large block survey southwest of the intersection of E. University Drive and Wilmington Avenue. No cultural resources were recorded in proximity to the WesPac alignment during that survey.
In 1989, Del Chario and Demcak surveyed a 300-acre parcel on the west side of Wilmington Avenue between E. University Avenue and Victoria Street. No cultural resources were identified during the survey.
A pipeline alignment paralleling Imperial Highway adjacent to LAX was surveyed by Wlodarski in 1987 in conjunction with a large sewage project. No cultural resources were identified along that segment in proximity to the WesPac alignment.
- 12 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
A short section of the WesPac alignment adjacent to Imperial Highway at Sepulveda was surveyed by Wlodarski in 1992. No cultural resources were identified along that segment in proximity to the WesPac alignment.
Another pipeline survey conducted by Myra Franks & Associates in 1987 included a short section of the WesPac alignment near the southwest corner of LAX. No cultural resources were identified along that section of the alignment.
Raschke and Stadium conducted a survey of open space properties on LAX in 1995. One site, LAN-691, is recorded near Imperial Highway south of LAX but is presumed buried under up to 15 meters of fill materials. No evidence of the site was observed during the 1995 survey.
Wesson et al. (2000) conducted a series of surveys at several locations south of LAX. Two of those parcels are located along the west side of Douglas Street in proximity to the WesPac alignment. No cultural resources were identified along those sections of the alignment.
The Alameda Corridor Transportation Project (Wlodarski 1992) cultural resources survey included a short segment of the alignment near its southern terminus between Dominguez Channel and Henry Ford Avenue. No cultural resources were identified in proximity to the WesPac alignment during that survey.
LSA (Padon 1992) surveyed a large parcel for the Arco Refinery on the east side of Wilmington between Sepulveda Boulevard on the south, East 223rd Street on the north, and Pacific Street on the east. A large ethnographic prehistoric site is known to exist east and west of Wilmington Avenue, just north of Sepulveda Blvd (see LAN 98 site description in Appendix A [restricted access], Figure 2 [restricted access], and Mitigation for Resource section 7).
LSA Associates (Duke 2000) conducted a cultural resource assessment for the installation of telecommunications facility at the intersection of Avalon Blvd. and East Pacific Street. No cultural resources were identified in proximity to the current project alignment during that investigation.
William Self & Associates (2001) surveyed a large tract previously surveyed by Padon in 1992. No cultural resources were found during the survey, but the report references LAN- 98 as being located in the southwest corner of the parcel and LAN-2682 several hundred feet further east. LAN-2682 has yielded human remains and significant artifacts. The site is presumed extant under several meters of fill (see Mitigation for Resource section 7 for recommended measures).
In 2002, LSA Associates (Duke 2002) conducted a cultural resource assessment for the installation of telecommunications facility at the intersection of Avalon Blvd. and East
- 13 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
228th Street. No cultural resources were identified in proximity to the current project alignment during that investigation.
LSA Associates (Duke 2002a) surveyed a wireless facility site at the intersection of Sepulveda Blvd. and Alameda Street. No cultural resources were identified within the project area during this investigation. Duke notes the Pacific Electric Railway Station, Watson Station is located 500 feet southeast adjacent to Alameda Street. The station appears eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (see Mitigation for Resource section 7 for recommended measures).
Horne and Livingstone (2002) conducted a survey that included approximately 1 mile of the current alignment along Alameda Street between the Pacific Coast Highway and Opp Street. No cultural resources were identified along the current alignment during that investigation. The investigation did note two prehistoric sites within a 0.5 mile radius of the project area, one consisting of a Native American burial, the other a historic culvert. The report also discusses the potential for buried cultural resources in the area (see Mitigation for Resource section 7 for recommended measures).
Martin and Self (2003) surveyed the Kinder Morgan tank farm southeast of the intersection of Alameda Street and Sepulveda Blvd. No cultural resources were recorded on the tank farm during that investigation. The report mentions a prehistoric burial site ¼ mile southeast of the tank farm and notes the potential for buried cultural resources in the general area (see Mitigation for Resource section 7 for recommended measures).
LSA Associates (Harper 2003) surveyed a wireless communications site at 22404 Avalon Blvd. in Carson. The survey did not identify any cultural resources in proximity to the alternative alignment.
3.5 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Raschke and Stadium (1995) identified two fossiliferous geologic units and numerous recorded fossil localities in native soil along the alignment and project areas. The units consist of the Palos Verde Sand Formation and the Lakewood Formation. These date to the late Pleistocene and consist of shallow sediments containing fossil taxa similar to Rancho La Brea (e.g., fish, marine mammals, frogs, snakes, birds, sloths, rabbits, squirrels, dire wolves, saber tooth cats, horses, camels, bison, and mammoth). Near shore ancient dunes might yield late Pleistocene invertebrate fossils, primarily clams, snails, and abalone. Most fossils are found, including those found along the pipeline alignment, at relatively shallow depths where native sediments occur at the surface and have not been buried by fill materials. Based on this background research, it is recommended a paleontologist be present during excavation activities. Based on research conducted, there is a possibility that subsurface resources could be present; however this cannot be determined until excavation activities start. Thus a recommendation for sensitivity monitoring is given (see Mitigation for Resource section 7 for recommended measures).
- 14 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
4.0 FIELD SURVEY
4.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND COVERAGE The field survey was conducted in several phases. On September 23, 2006, TRC project archaeologist David Smith conducted an intensive survey along the project alignment. The survey consisted of a systematic pedestrian and driving survey of known historical properties and sites. The project area was subsequently changed to include the consideration of alternative routes. TRC senior archaeologists Shelby Manney and lead archaeologist Chris Drover surveyed these areas on February 20, 2007, with consideration of both historical properties and sites. Prehistoric sites and resources were not visible due to the urban environment. The areas of impact include heavily disturbed urbanized land (roads, housing development, commercial development, and industrial development), thus there were not any identified areas of open native land. In areas where prehistoric sites were previously identified, Dr. Drover and Ms. Manney resurveyed the area, but found that all identified resources had been reburied or were not visible due to existing development; however, there is still a potential for protohistoric and prehistoric subsurface resources based on previous records (see Background Research section). Another survey was completed May 07, 2007 by GIS specialist William Dochnahl and Staff archaeologist Michael Davis. The survey, again, consisted of documenting previously recorded historical properties and sites, as well as noting any sites not previously recorded.
4.2 SURVEY RESULTS The surface sediments of the project site area were significantly disturbed, primarily due to the effects of urban development. All potential prehistoric sites are under the urban development. There is a moderate to high possibility that during excavation activities on sections south of Interstate 405, cultural resources will be uncovered (Figure 1). Previously recorded sites in this area include No. 147 Banning Park; No. 169 Drum Barracks; No. 718 Site of the Initial United States Air Meet; Banning House or The Gen. Phineas Banning Residence [NRHP #71000160; ca. 1850–1899]; Hangar One [NRHP #92000959; ca. 1925–1949]; Drum Barracks [NRHP #71000161 ca. 1850–1874]. The historic resources identified occur in the area of the proposed pipeline, but not within the pipeline route or construction area. As such, none of the identified historical resources would be directly impacted by the construction of the proposed pipeline. Indirect impacts, such as those caused by ground borne vibration, which is typically caused by pile driving, blasting, and similar activities, would not be required for the construction of the pipeline. Thus, indirect impacts on historic resources during project construction would also be less than significant.
- 15 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Under CEQA, a project would potentially have significant impacts if it would cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or prehistoric resource (i.e., a cultural resource eligible to the CRHR, or an archaeological resource defined as a unique archaeological resource that does not meet CRHR criteria, or a unique paleontological resource), or would disturb human remains. A non-unique archaeological resource need be given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by the lead agency.
In many cases, determination of a resource’s eligibility to CRHR (or if prehistoric, its uniqueness) can be made only through extensive research, testing, and other costly and time-consuming methods. Where possible, to the maximum extent possible, resources should be avoided. If, as the project proceeds, it proves impossible to avoid cultural resources on a selected project component, formal eligibility evaluation will be undertaken. If the resource meets the criteria of eligibility to CRHR or is a unique archaeological resource, it will be formally addressed under Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of CEQA guidelines. Resources that are not formally evaluated will be treated as eligible: all mitigation measures outlined in Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of CEQA pertaining to the avoidance of direct and indirect impacts will apply.
Although no important or unique cultural resources, aside from the historic properties (Drum Barracks, No. 147 Banning Park, No. 169 Drum Barracks, No. 718 Site of the Initial United States Air Meet, Banning House or The Gen. Phineas Banning Residence [NRHP #71000160; ca. 1850–1899] Hangar One [NRHP #92000959; ca. 1925–1949], Drum Barracks [NRHP #71000161 ca. 1850–1874]) were found on the surface during the surface survey, archaeological monitoring is recommended for construction activity in all areas (Figure 1 and Figure 2). However, sensitivity monitoring (see Mitigation Measures) is recommended in areas of low to moderate sensitivity and daily monitoring is recommended for areas with higher sensitivity (see Mitigation Measures, Figure 1, and Figure 2). The project site is located in the vicinity of at least 12 unique cultural resources (as described in CRHR). As such, there is a moderately high probability that prehistoric and historic cultural resources may be present beneath the surface. This area, shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 as the portion of the alignment highlighted in purple, due to previously recorded findings during excavation projects, yields a higher probability of containing cultural resources than is initially visible on the surface. The area of the alignment highlighted in yellow on Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows areas of low to moderate sensitivity, either due to sensitivity caused by areas that have not been investigated previously for surface and/or subsurface resources (and thus have not been identified) or due to existing historic properties and sites that are dated to the early 20th century. The unknown resources in the northern portion of the alignment (highlighted in yellow in Figure 1 and Figure 2) are said to have moderate sensitivity, but may require additional mitigation if, during sensitivity monitoring, cultural resources are found, or if there is an increased possibility of the presence of subsurface cultural resources (see Mitigation for
- 16 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
Resource section). The portions that have been surveyed for surface and/or subsurface resources in the northern portion of the alignment have shown little or no unique or important cultural resources on the surface, aside from the built environment mentioned above, and as such are thought to have low sensitivity. However, based on previous investigations within that area and surrounding areas there is a possibility, although low, of finding subsurface cultural resources (see Mitigation Measures).
A review of the 1944 topographic map for Los Angeles shows that by the end of World War II (WWII) considerable development, consisting of streets and residential and commercial blocks, had occurred throughout the area containing the proposed and alternative alignments. This development occurred prior to historic preservation legislation and little or no effort was made to identify and preserve historic or prehistoric resources in the area. Some early 20th century historic properties and much older prehistoric sites in the area were possibly destroyed or buried by subsequent post-WWII development. The location and condition of any buried historic or prehistoric sites cannot be accurately predicted, but the numerous occurrences of construction monitoring discoveries elsewhere in the Los Angeles area attest to the possibility of buried resources in proximity to the alternate alignment.
Many of the structures and roadways depicted on the 1944 map of Los Angeles might still exist along and within the alignment. These might include historic residential or commercial buildings, paved streets, and water and sewage utilities. These could be adjacent to, or under, the pavement. Old roadways might also be historical in nature and retain remnants of even older pavement beneath newer layers of pavement. Early last century many residential and commercial structures had outbuildings, wells, septic tanks, trash pits, and the like that could have been built over during post-WWII and more recent construction. Remnants of these features could be encountered during trenching along the alignment. Remnants of prehistoric sites could be encountered in association with or beneath historic features as well.
A crucial factor in determining the potential for encountering buried cultural resources is the depth of proposed excavations and whether the excavations will encounter native sediments or fill materials from previous excavations.
Since the alignment is contained entirely within existing streets, knowledge of the construction methods used to build or repair those streets could facilitate an assessment of the potential for encountering buried cultural resources. This would entail a determination of the maximum depth of previous excavations conducted at a given location along the alignment. If the previous excavation in an area exceeded the maximum depth of the proposed excavation and now consists of fill, cultural resources are unlikely to be encountered. If it did not, there is a possibility cultural resources could be encountered. Due to this possibility sensitivity monitoring is recommended (see mitigation section).
- 17 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
6.1 MITIGATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS DUE TO RELATED IMPACTS Mitigation under CEQA Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 must address impacts to the values for which a cultural resource is considered important. To mitigate adequately, it must therefore be determined what elements make a site eligible for CRHR. The first line of mitigation is complete avoidance of all cultural resources when feasible. If avoidance is not probable, then testing and/or monitoring may be recommended. Due to sensitive sites located directly south of I-405 (Figure 1 and Figure 2 [restricted access]), monitoring during construction for unidentified cultural remains is recommended. If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during monitoring, evaluation of the site to determine significance would be required. Significant cultural resources impacted by the project would, in general, require mitigation, which may include data recovery.
Measures to ensure avoidance of cultural resources within the areas of potential effect, and measures to avoid indirect impacts to nearby cultural resources are recommended below. The mitigation measures and procedures described would apply to any cultural resources in the project’s area. With implementation of the measures listed below, no significant unavoidable impacts to known cultural resources are expected to occur.
6.2 AVOIDANCE As needed, an archaeologist should accompany the project engineer to the field to demarcate known cultural resource boundaries. Due to the possibility of subsurface resources, all temporary use areas will need a preconstruction survey and monitoring during grading to reduce possible impact to cultural and paleontological resources to less than significant. If a potentially significant cultural resource is discovered, the route/temporary use area should be modified to avoid that resource. If there are no feasible means to avoid the resource, the cultural resource should be tested for eligibility; if found significant, the measures for mitigation described below are recommended.
6.3 PHYSICAL DEMARCATION AND PROTECTION Although there are prehistoric, protohistoric, and historic resources in or within 300 feet of the project area, all perceived impacts are limited to sites mentioned in the Mitigation for Resource section. The majority of all of the cultural resources with a potential for impact are underground, and thus the full extent of the site boundaries are, in some cases, unknown. This, along with sections of the route that have not been previously surveyed, creates a high potential for unknown resources in some areas and a moderate potential in others (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Yet, all known boundaries of cultural resources that reside on the road or the right-of-way will be demarcated to allow for
- 18 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007 visibility of the sensitive areas. If sensitive cultural materials are found, then in some cases, where cultural resources are considered significant under CEQA Section 15064.5 Important or Significant Cultural Resources, additional archaeological work may be required to demarcate the boundaries of the cultural resource to ascertain whether the cultural resource can be avoided.
6.4 CREW EDUCATION Prior to beginning of construction, the construction crew should be informed of the resource values involved and of the regulatory protections afforded those resources. A preconstruction meeting talk should be given at the site location, which describes cultural resources that may be encountered in the project site area, as well as the laws that protect them. The crew should be cautioned not to collect artifacts, and asked to inform a construction supervisor in the event that cultural remains are uncovered. Also, see Mitigation for Resources section 7.1 for more details.
6.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING All initial grading or excavation within 100 feet of any potentially significant resource that may have a subsurface component should be monitored by an archaeologist (Figure 1 and Figure 2 [restricted access]). If subsurface materials are uncovered, construction work in the immediate vicinity will be halted and the Mitigation for Resources Discovered During Construction procedures described below should be implemented. In addition, sensitivity monitoring is recommended for areas north of I-405 (Figure 1 and Figure 2 restricted access). Full time monitoring would be recommended on the peak sensitivity area south of I-405 (during all construction activities). Also a minimum of one day monitoring, additional monitoring to be determined on-site at the discretion of the cultural resource monitor, would be recommended on unknown or lower sensitivity areas north of I-405 (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 [restricted access]).
During any earthmoving activity associated with construction of the proposed pipeline or development of the property, the archeological field technician will monitor activity according to the following schedule, based on the cultural/archaeological importance of the cultural resources underlying the project area. Full time monitoring would be recommended on the peak sensitivity area south of I-405 (during all construction activities). Also a minimum of one day monitoring, additional monitoring to be determined on-site at the discretion of the cultural resource monitor, would be recommended on unknown or lower sensitivity areas north of I-405 (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 [restricted access]).
1. If any significant cultural resources are uncovered, earthmoving equipment and activity will be diverted away from the site until the field technician has examined the remains. If important, the remains will be removed. If warranted, a sample of surrounding sediment or rock will be collected.
- 19 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
2. If significant cultural remains are observed and safety restrictions permit, the construction contractor should allow the field technician to determine if the material is significant. To reduce any delay in construction, the grading contractor may, at the archeological field technician’s discretion, assist in the removal (for processing) and/or reburial of fossils, large cultural remains, and rock.
3. If warranted, cultural remains identified (along with the accompanying field notes, maps, and photographs) may be accessioned into the collection of a designated, accredited museum.
4. If human remains are uncovered, no further disturbance of the site should occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary finds as to origin and disposition. The following actions must be taken immediately upon discovery of human remains:
a. Stop immediately and contact County Coroner b. The coroner has two working days to examine human remains after being notified by the responsible person. If the remains are Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission; c. The Native American Heritage Commission will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American. d. The most likely descendent has 48 hours to make recommendations to the owner or representative, for treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains and grave goods. e. If the descendent does not make recommendations within 48 hours, WesPac should re-inter the remains in an area secure from further disturbance, or; f. If the owner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the WesPac or the descendent may request mediation by the American Heritage Commission.
6.6 PALEONTOLOGIC MONITORING The LAX Master Plan Final EIS/EIR identifies the high potential for paleontological resources within the Palos Verdes Sand Formation underlying the LAX-Airport property. Construction within the airport property should be required to comply with mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIS/EIR, including paleontological monitoring for all excavations deeper than six feet. Since the project area, including the LAX site, is underlain by paleontologically rich geological formations, it is conservatively assumed that paleontological resources could be present. Although resources are not anticipated to be uncovered due to the linear and relatively narrow width of construction, conservation
- 20 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007 measures, set forth as mitigation measures (listed below) are recommended to assure that no undiscovered paleontological resources or sites would be adversely changed or impacted by the construction of the proposed pipeline. Due to the potential for subsurface resources in the proposed project area, an accredited paleontologist should, no less than once per week, monitor earthmoving activity associated with construction of the proposed pipeline system. Additional monitoring will be determined on-site at the discretion of the paleontological resource monitor. The paleontologist should also monitor all initial grading or excavation within 100 feet of any known potentially significant resource that may have a subsurface component (LAX Airport). Also, Full time monitoring should occur for depths that exceeded 6 feet in areas that are on the Lakewood and Palos Verdes Sand Formations that are undisturbed (the formation underlies the LAX Airport). If subsurface materials are uncovered, construction work in the immediate vicinity will be halted and the Mitigation for Resources Discovered During Construction procedures described below should be implemented.
1. A paleontological supervisor or field technician will be responsible for collecting exposed fossils (if any are uncovered during grading or excavation activity) from the lithographic units of high importance. All vertebrate and representative samples of mega vertebrate and plant fossils will be collected, if they are uncovered in any earthmoving process. Due to the disturbance created by an urban development, no surface exposed fossils are thought to be on or within 300 feet of the alignment. However, if productive sites are found, the sites would need to be excavated and approximately 2,000 pound (lb) rock samples should be collected to process for micro-vertebrate fossil remains.
Because there is a potential for subsurface resources in the proposed project area, the paleontological field technician will monitor activity based on sensitivity during any earthmoving activity associated with construction of the proposed pipeline or development of the property. However, the presence of subsurface resources cannot be determined before excavation activity has occurred. Thus, for all portions of the alignment and any temporary use areas, a recommendation of sensitivity monitoring is given, which includes a minimum of one day monitoring. Additional monitoring will be determined on-site at the discretion of the paleontological resource monitor.
2. If any significant fossils are uncovered, earthmoving equipment and activity should be diverted away from the site until the field technician has examined the remains. If important, the remains should be removed. If warranted, a sample of rock should be collected.
3. If significant fossil remains are observed and safety restrictions permit, the construction contractor should allow the field technician to determine if the material is significant. At the field technician’s discretion, the contractor may assist in the removal and or reburial of fossil remains and rock to reduce any delay in construction, for processing.
- 21 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
4. Depending on the paleontologic importance of the rock unit, the rock should be examined periodically for microfossils by wet or dry screening. If important fossil remains are found as a result of screening, samples of sufficient size to generate a representation of the organisms preserved will be collected and processed on-site or at a convenient location.
5. Fossils recovered from the field or by the processing will be prepared, identified, and (along with the accompanying field notes, maps, and photographs) accessioned into the collection of a designated, accredited museum.
6. If human remains are uncovered, no further disturbance of the site should occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary finds as to origin and disposition. The following actions must be taken immediately upon discovery of human remains:
a. Stop immediately and contact County Coroner b. The coroner has two working days to examine human remains after being notified by the responsible person. If the remains are Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission; c. The Native American Heritage Commission will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American. d. The most likely descendent has 48 hours to make recommendations to the owner or representative, for treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains and grave goods. e. If the descendent does not make recommendations within 48 hours, WesPac should re-inter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance, or; f. If the owner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the WesPac or the descendent may request mediation by the American Heritage Commission.
6.7 NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORING To ensure participation by interested members of the Native American community and to comply with CEQA, the NAHC was contacted with regard to potential sacred lands within or adjacent to the project area. As noted above in Section 1.5, Native American consultation with Mr. Anthony Morales of the Gabrielino/Tongva Band has resulted in his request for monitor participation. The monitor will be retained either directly by the project applicant, or through the subconsultant conducting the actual fieldwork.
- 22 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
6.8 FORMAL COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA SECTION 15064.5 AND 15126.4 AND SECTION 106 OF THE NHPA Should a resource be encountered, and in the event that a resource cannot be avoided during the placement of any project component, further archaeological work will be undertaken as appropriate to assess the importance/significance of the resource prior to the project continuation, or in the case of excavation activity, construction will be halted and appropriate mitigation measures will be taken (see Mitigation for Resource section 7).
7.0 MITIGATION FOR RESOURCE
If unanticipated resources are discovered during construction, they will be addressed under the procedures set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5. If possible, the resource will be avoided first through design modification, or second, through protective measures as described above. If the resource cannot be avoided, the project archaeologist will consult with the SHPO with regard to resource significance. If it is determined that the resource is significant, then measures to mitigate impacts will be devised in consultation with the SHPO and will be carried out by the applicant.
7.1 MITIGATION FOR RESOURCES DISCOVERED DURING CONSTRUCTION If unanticipated resources are discovered during construction, they should be addressed under the procedures set forth in CEQA Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4. If possible, the resource will be avoided through design modification, or protective measures as described above. If the resource cannot be avoided, the project archaeologist should consult with the applicable municipality to reduce impact to less than significant. If it is determined that the resource is significant, measures to mitigate impacts will be devised in consultation with a qualified archaeologist and would be carried out by the applicant. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant.
7.2 PROTECTION OF RESOURCES DURING FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION Although the initial impact created during construction activities associated with the placement of the pipeline would be mitigated to a less than significant level, there is a potential for further disturbance of resources. Emergency maintenance and repair and routine inspection have the potential to cause impacts to cultural resources. There is only a potential for disturbance if the maintenance and/or repair exceed the previously excavated depths and/or area of previous disturbance, if there is any disturbance caused to surrounding soil or historic structures, if resources that were reburied are uncovered or have the possibility of re-disturbance due to any maintenance, repair, or operation. In
- 23 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007 devising specific mitigative measures to address impacts for any site that cannot be avoided during construction, it should therefore be considered that there is a potential for ongoing impacts to any resource that could not be avoided through project design. Any mitigative data recovery should be adequately scoped, in conjunction with the regulatory agencies, to address potential long-term, ongoing impacts. In addition, crews and vehicles (under the applicant’s control) engaged in operation and maintenance would, as per project policy, confine activities to the greatest extent possible to existing records.
7.3 SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES Due to the potential for subsurface resources in the proposed project area, an accredited archaeologist should, no less than once per week, monitor earthmoving activity associated with construction of the proposed pipeline system. The archaeologist should also monitor all initial grading or excavation within 100 feet of any known potentially significant resource that may have a subsurface component. Listed below are all of the known significant cultural resources. For full descriptions and locations for the sites mentioned below, please refer to Appendix A and Figure 2.
LAN-98
It is unknown whether the site extends to portions east of S. Wilmington Ave. and west of S. Alameda St (Figure 2). For this reason, monitoring during excavation of this portion of the alignment is recommended.
LAN-2208 There is a moderate chance of encountering resources associated with this site due to proximity of known resources. Monitoring during excavation activities, therefore, is recommended for portions of the alignment that parallel this site (Figure 2).
LAN-2682 This is an extremely sensitive site. For this reason, no activity in this area and within 100 feet of the boundaries of this site should be conducted without the presence of a project archaeologist. Boundaries would be determined from previous site investigations and should be updated during construction.
LAN-2942 There is less than significant impact anticipated for this site. However, if recognized archaeological resources are exhumed, they would need to be reburied as directed by a certified archaeologist.
LAN-3063
- 24 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
The cultural record recommends monitoring of excavations in the vicinity. Monitoring is highly recommended for all activities conducted on and within 100 feet of this site.
LAN-3064 The site was reburied. Should this site be rediscovered during excavation activities, reburial is recommended. Monitoring is recommended during excavation activities on and within 100 feet of site.
LAN-3065 There is no perceived impact to this site, due to previous impact; however, monitoring is recommended due to possible unknown cultural resources in the area.
LAN-3066 The site was uncovered during the construction of the Alameda Corridor. The site was reburied. Should the site be rediscovered during excavation activities, reburial would be needed. Monitoring during excavation activity done on and within 100 feet of this site is recommended.
LAN-3067 This site consists of two unidentified concrete structures unearthed during construction. The structures are thought to be related to the former Southern Pacific Railroad facility. Should the site be rediscovered during excavation activities, reburial of discovered artifacts is recommended. Monitoring during excavation activity done on and within 100 feet of this site is recommended.
Due to a concentration of sites located along the proposed alignments south of I-405, monitoring during excavation activities is recommended (Figure 1).
7.4 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Federal and State Guidelines for Historic Built Environments
CEQA Section 15064 states that in evaluating the significance of effect caused by a project, the Lead Agency should consider the direct and indirect physical changes in the environment that may be caused by the undertaking. Under CEQA Section 15064.5(b)(1), a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource if the change includes “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.” In other words, a project has a substantial impact on a
- 25 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
historical resource if this impact diminishes those qualities that make the resource eligible for the California Register. In many cases, determination of a resource’s eligibility to the CRHR (or its uniqueness) can be made only through extensive research. As such, the best alternative to preserve historic resources is the “no action alternative.” However, because this alternative is not always feasible, any project should consider alternatives or mitigation measures to lessen the effects to these resources. Where possible, to the maximum extent possible, impacts to resources should be avoided. If, as the project proceeds, it proves impossible to avoid cultural resources, formal eligibility evaluation will be undertaken. If the resource meets the criteria of eligibility to the CRHR, it will be formally addressed under Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of CEQA.
Built Environment Adjacent to Project Area:
The historic structures within the project site’s APE, Drum Barracks (NRHP #71000161 ca. 1850–1874), Banning House or The Gen. Phineas Banning Residence (NRHP #71000160; ca. 1850–1899, No. 718 Site of the Initial United States Air Meet, No. 169 Drum Barracks, No. 147 Banning Park, will not be adversely impacted. These historic resources occur in the area of the proposed pipeline, but not within the pipeline route or construction area. As such, none of the identified historical resources would be directly impacted by the construction of the proposed pipeline. Indirect impacts, such as those caused by groundborne vibration, which is typically caused by pile driving, blasting, and similar activities, would not be required for the construction of the pipeline. Thus, indirect impacts on historic resources during project construction would also be less than significant.
8.0 REFERENCES
Bada, J. L., R. A. Schroeder, and G. G. Carter 1974 New Evidence for the antiquity of man in North America deduced from aspartic acid racemization. Science 184
Berger, R., R. Protsch, R. Reynolds, C. Rozaire, and J. Sackett 1971 New Radiocarbon date based on bone collagen of California Paleoindians. Berkeley: Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 12:43–49.
Blackburn, Thomas 1974 Ceremonial Integration and Social Interaction in Aboriginal California. In 'Antap: California Indian Political and Economic Organization, edited by Lowell J. Bean and Thomas F. King, pp. 93–110. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
- 26 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
1975 December's Child: A Book of Chumash Oral Narratives. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Duke, Curt 2000 Letter. Cultural Resource Assessment for Pacific Bell Wireless Facility LA 441– 15, County of Los Angeles, California. LSA Associates, Irvine, California. Submitted to Pacific Bell Wireless, Tustin, California.
2002 Letter. Cultural Resource Assessment for AT&T Wireless Services Facility No. 05226A, Los Angeles, California. LSA Associates, Irvine, California. Submitted to GeoTrans, Inc., Irvine, California.
2002a Letter. Cultural Resource Assessment for Cingular Wireless Facility No. SM425– 01, Los Angeles County, California. LSA Associates, Irvine, California. Submitted to Cingular Wireless, Tustin, California.
Grant, C. 1978 Eastern Coastal Chumash. In Handbook of North American Indians, California, vol. 8, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 509–519. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Harper, Caprice D. 2003 Cultural Resource Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility No. SM 216–03, Carson, Los Angeles County, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Irvine, California. Submitted to Cingular Wireless, Irvine, California.
Horne, Melinda and David Livingstone 2002 Department of Transportation Negative Survey Report. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority.
Hudson, D. T., J.Timbrook, and M. Rempe, eds. and annotators 1978 Tomol: Chumash Watercraft as described in the ethnographic notes of John P. Harrington. Socorro: Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 10.
Koerper, H.C., and C.E. Drover 1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34.
Kroeber, A.L.
- 27 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Publications, New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No.78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Martin, Leigh and William Self 2003 Cultural Resources Assessment Report Carson Terminal Upgrade Project, Los Angeles County, California. William Self Associates, Inc. Submitted to Kinder Morgan Tank Storage Terminals LLD, Orange, California
Meighan, C.W. 1959 The Little Harbor Site, Catalina Island: An example of ecological interpretation in archaeology. American Antiquity 24(4):383–405.
Padon, Beth 1992 Archaeological Survey Results: Proposed ARCO Los Angeles Refinery Clean Fuels Project, Carson, California. LSA Associates, Inc., Irvine, California. Prepared for ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Camarillo, California.
Rogers, D.B. 1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Wallace, W.J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11.
Warren, C.N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1–14.
William Self Associates, Inc. 2001 California Energy Commission Application for Certification, BP 5th Train Project, City of Carson, Los Angeles County, California. William Self Associates, Inc., Orinda, California. Prepared for ENSR, Camarillo, California.
Wlodarski, Robert J. 1992 A Phase I Archaeological Study for the Proposed Alameda Transportation Corridor Project, Los Angeles County, California. Robert J. Wlodarski,
- 28 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
Calabasas, California. Prepared for Myra L. Frank & Associates, Inc., Los Angeles, California. Technical.
- 29 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX A
SITE DESCRIPTIONS
- 30 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
FIGURE 2
- 35 -
VU42
LAX ^_ HANGAR ONE k VU90
T
S
105 S §¨¦ E A
V
L
A
G
T
U
N
O
O
D
M
N
R VU1 E V
S
W ROSECRANS AVE
D BLV H EAC B DO ON RED
VU91 VU91
E VICTORIA ST
NO. 718 SITE OF THE INITIAL UNITED STATES AIR MEET k §¨¦710
E DEL AMO AVE 405 E §¨¦ V A
N
O k T
G
N º I M 107 L VU I k W 0 1,250 2,500 m S
D T
V S
L GENERAL LOCATION OF LAN-98 B A
D Scale = 1:125,000 N E O M
L A
A L
V k A
A S k N k
W LOMITA BLVD k Vopak VU1 NO. 147 BANNING PARK k k ^_ NO. 169 DRUM BARRACKS k I VU47 §¨¦710 GENERAL LOCATION OF LAN-2208
§¨¦110
Legend
k Cultural resource Smart Energy Transport System Proposed Pipeline Proposed Pipeline Alternate Pipeline Figure 1. Cultural Resources Monitoring Required Sensitivity Monitoring Rev. 5
June 4, 2007 BD WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
CONFIDENTIALITY
The site location data presented in this document (Appendix A), particularly site sensitivity location map, are of a sensitive nature and must remain confidential. Caution must be exercised in distributing this information. Maps should be available only to managers, officials, and other professionals who have a legitimate “need to know,” for purposes of avoiding site impacts during construction or otherwise managing historic properties during project implementation.
- 31 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX B
LAWS & REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
- 36 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX B
LAWS & REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
The archaeological survey described above served to identify cultural resources present within and immediately adjacent to the project site. The project is considered a state level undertaking and, as such, is subject to state laws governing cultural resources. Any cultural resource potentially affected by the project will be subject to compliance with the provisions outlined in CEQA/CRHR. If a cultural resource is discovered during construction, and cannot be avoided, a program of site evaluation should be undertaken to ascertain site significance under CEQA/CRHR.
- 37 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX B
LAWS & REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
Statute Requirements Oversight Agency
Native American Graves NAGPRA provides a process for U.S. Department of the Interior, Protection and Repatriation Act of museums and federal agencies to National Park Service 1990 [PL101601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 et return certain Native American seq.] cultural items—human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal descendants, culturally affiliated Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations.
American Disabilities Act of 1990, Establishes regulations allowing U.S. Department of the Interior, Section 4.1.7 access to historic buildings by National Park Service, State Historic disabled persons. Preservation Office, state and local agencies
Archaeological Resources Secures the protection of U.S. Department of the Interior, Protection Act of 1979, as amended archaeological resources and sites National Park Service [PL 96–95; 16 U.S.C. 470aa–mm] which are on public lands and Indian lands, and fosters increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals.
National Park Service Organic Act, The Secretary of the Interior is U.S. Department of the Interior, Section 8, Reports on Threatened directed to investigate, study, and National Park Service Landmarks and New Area Studies, as continually monitor the welfare of amended [PL 91–458; 16 U.S.C. 1a– areas whose resources exhibit 5] qualities of national significance and which may have the potential for inclusion into the National Park System; the Secretary must also submit to the Speaker of House of Representatives and to the President of the Senate, a complete and current list of all areas in the Registry of Natural Landmarks and those of areas of National Significance listed in NRHP and which areas exhibit known or anticipated threats or damage to their integrity.
American Indian Religious Policy of the United States to protect U.S. Department of the Interior, Freedom Act of 1976, as amended and preserve religious freedom of National Park Service [PL 95–341; 42 U.S.C. 1996 and American Indians, Eskimo, Aleut, 1996a] and Native Hawaiians.
- 38 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX B
LAWS & REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
Statute Requirements Oversight Agency Archaeological and Historic Guidelines for Archaeology and U.S. Department of the Interior, Preservation Act of 1974, as Historic Preservation: Standards and National Park Service amended[PL 89–665 16 U.S.C. 469– Guidelines. 469c]
National Environmental Policy Act It is the continuing responsibility of Environmental Protection Agency of 1969, as amended [83 Statute 852; the federal government to use all U.S.C. 4321 et seq.] practicable means to ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings and to preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice.
National Historic Preservation Act Provides for the protection of U.S. Department of the Interior, of 1966, as amended [80 Stat. 915; 16 significant historical properties. National Park Service U.S.C. 470 et seq.]
National Trust for Historic Furthers policies established in U.S. Department of the Interior, Preservation, Creation and Purpose, Historic Sites Act and facilitates National Park Service as amended [63 Stat. 927; 16 U.S.C. public participation in the 468] preservation of sites, buildings, and objects of national significance or interest.
Historic Sites Act of 1935, as National policy to preserve for public U.S. Department of the Interior, amended [49 Stat. 666, 16 U.S.C. 461 use historic sites, buildings, and National Park Service et seq.] objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States.
National Park Service Organic Act, Establishes the creation of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Section 1, NPS Mission, as amended National Park Service within the National Park Service [39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1] Department of the Interior, with the objective of promoting and regulating areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations for the purpose of conserving the scenery and the natural and historical objects and the wildlife therein.
Antiquities Act of 1906 [34 Stat. Prohibits the destruction of historic or U.S. Department of the Interior, 225,16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.] prehistoric ruins or monuments on National Park Service federal government lands without the permission of the government.
Other Federal Laws Governing Cultural Resources
- 39 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX B
LAWS & REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
Statute Requirements Oversight Agency Executive Order 13287, Preserve It is the policy of the federal General Services Administration America government to provide leadership in preserving America's heritage by actively advancing the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the federal government, and by promoting intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of historic properties.
Executive Order 13175, Agencies should respect Indian tribal General Services Administration Consultation and Coordination with self government and sovereignty, Indian Tribal Governments honor tribal treaty and other rights, and strive to meet the responsibilities that arise from the unique legal relationship between the federal government and Indian tribal governments.
Executive Order 11593, Protection The federal government should General Services Administration and Enhancement of the Cultural provide leadership in preserving, Environment restoring and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the nation.
Executive Order 13006, Locating The federal government should General Services Administration Federal Facilities on Historic utilize and maintain, wherever Properties in Our Nation’s Central operationally appropriate and Cities economically prudent, historic properties and districts, especially those located in our central business areas.
Internal Revenue Code, Section 47 Tax credits for the rehabilitation of U.S. Department of the Interior, Rehabilitation Credit [PL 101–508; historic buildings. National Park Service 26 U.S.C. 47]
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Contribution of a qualified real Internal Revenue Service Section 170(h), Qualified property interest, to a qualified Conservation Contributions, as organization, exclusively for amended [PL 96–541; 26 U.S.C. conservation purposes. 170(h)]
Public Building Cooperative Use Public use of historically and General Services Administration Act of 1976 [PL 94–541; 40 U.S.C. architecturally significant buildings. 601a]
- 40 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX B
LAWS & REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
Statute Requirements Oversight Agency Federal Property and Transfer of excess property among General Services Administration Administrative Services Act of federal agencies and other 1949, as amended [63 Stat. 385; 40 organizations; transfer of real U.S.C. 484(k)(3) and (4)] property located in Indian reservations to the Secretary of the Interior.
3 Code of Federal Regulation Part Environmental impact and related U.S. Department of Transportation 771 procedures. and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
26 CFR Part 1 and 602 Income tax: investment tax credit for Internal Revenue Service qualified rehabilitation expenditures.
26 CFR Parts 1, 20, 25, and 602 Income tax: qualified conservation Internal Revenue Service contributions.
30 CFR Part 700 to the end Office of Surface Mining United States Department of the Reclamation and Enforcement. Interior
36 CFR Part 60 National Register of Historic Places. United States Department of the Interior
36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for state, tribal, and local United States Department of the government historic preservation Interior programs.
36 CFR Part 63 Determinations of eligibility for United States Department of the inclusion in the National Register of Interior Historic Places.
36 CFR Part 65 National Historic Landmarks United States Department of the Program. Interior
36 CFR Part 67 Historic Preservation Tax Incentive United States Department of the Certification. Interior
36 CFR Part 68 The Secretary of the Interior’s United States Department of the Standards for the Treatment of Interior Historic Properties.
36 CFR Part 73 World Heritage Convention. United States Department of the Interior
36 CFR Part 78 Waiver of Federal Agency United States Department of the Responsibilities under Section 110 of Interior the NHPA.
- 41 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX B
LAWS & REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
Statute Requirements Oversight Agency 36 CFR Part 79 Curation of Federally Owned and United States Department of the Administered Archaeological Interior Collections
36 CFR Part 800 Protection of historic properties Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
40 CFR Part 15001517 Regulations of the Council on United States Department of the Environmental Quality. Interior
41 CFR 10117 Management of buildings and General Services Administration grounds.
41 CFR 10120 Management of buildings and General Services Administration grounds.
43 CFR Part 3 Preservation of American antiquities. United States Department of the Interior
43 CFR Part 7 Protection of archaeological United States Department of the resources. Interior
43 CFR Part 10 Native American Graves Protection United States Department of the and Repatriation Act. Interior
Laws Governing State Cultural Resources
California Environmental Quality Applies to discretionary projects State Lead Agency Act of 1970, as amended causing a significant effect on the environment and a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource with a significant value.
Administrative Code, Title 14, No person should remove, injure, State Lead Agency; State Historic Section 4307 deface or destroy any object of Preservation Office; Tribal Historic paleontological, archaeological, or Preservation Office historical interest or value.
Government Code, Sections 6253, Disclosure of archaeological site All state and local agencies 6254, 6254.10 information is not required for records that relate to archaeological site information maintained by the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, or the State Lands Commission.
- 42 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX B
LAWS & REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
Statute Requirements Oversight Agency Government Code, Sections 25373 Authorizes county and city All local agencies and 37361 governments to establish zoning ordinances for the protection and regulation of buildings and structures of special historical value.
Health and Safety Code, Section Requires construction or excavation State Lead Agency 7050.5 stopped near human remains until a coroner determines whether the remains are Native American; requires the coroner to contact NAHC if the remains are Native American.
Health and Safety Code, Section Disturbance of Indian cemeteries is a State Lead Agency 7052 felony.
Health and Safety Code, Section Establishes the State Historical State Historical Building Safety 18950–18961 Building Code for the protection and Board preservation of historic buildings, while also ensuring building safety from natural and man-made hazards.
Penal Code, Title 14, Section 622.5 Misdemeanor offense for any person, State Lead Agency, local agency other than the owner, who willfully damages or destroys archaeological or historic features on public or privately owned land.
California Public Resources Code Creates the California Historic Department of Parks and Recreation, (PRC) Section 5020–5029.5 Landmarks Committee and State Lead Agency, local agencies authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to designate Registered Historical Landmarks and Registered Points of Historical Interest; establishes criteria for the protection and preservation of historic resources.
PRC 5097–5097.6 Provides guidance for state agencies State Lead Agency, Department of in the management of archaeological, Parks and Recreation paleontological, and historical sites affected by a major public works project on state land.
- 43 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX B
LAWS & REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
Statute Requirements Oversight Agency PRC 5097.9–5097.991 Establishes regulations for the State Lead Agency; State Historic protection of Native American Preservation Office; Tribal Historic religious places; establishes the Preservation Office; Native American Native American Heritage Heritage Commission Commission; California Native American Remains and Associated Grave artifacts should be repatriated; notification of discovery of Native American human remains to a most- likely descendent.
California Code of Regulations Recognizes that California’s State Lead Agency Section 1427 archaeological resources are endangered by urban development; the Legislature finds that these resources need preserving; it is a misdemeanor to alter any archaeological evidence found in any cave, or to remove any materials from a cave.
Senate Concurrent Resolution Requires all state agencies to State Lead Agency Number 43 cooperate with programs of archaeological survey and excavation, and to preserve known archaeological resources whenever reasonable.
Senate Concurrent Resolution Provides for the identification and Department of Parks and Recreation, Number 87 protection of traditional Native State Lead Agency American resource gathering sites on state land.
Senate Bill 18 (Burton) Protection and preservation of Native State Lead Agency, local agency, American Traditional Cultural Places Office of Planning and Research and during city and county general plan the Native American Heritage development. Commission
Senate Bill 922 (Ducheny) Exempts from California Public State Lead Agency, local agency, Records Act Native American graves, Native American Heritage cemeteries, archaeological site Commission information, and sacred places in the possession of the Native American Heritage Commission and other state or local agencies.
Laws Governing Local Cultural Resources
City of Los Angeles Administrative Identify, preserve and protect locally Cultural Heritage Commission of Los Code, Section 22.130, significant cultural resources, and Angeles preserve prehistoric and historic areas as open space.
- 44 -
WesPac LAX Pipeline Cultural Resource Assessment 8/30/2007
APPENDIX B
LAWS & REGULATIONS GOVERNING CULTURAL RESOURCES
Statute Requirements Oversight Agency City of Los Angeles Environmental Implement CEQA guidelines in the Environmental Affairs Department of Quality Guidelines City. Los Angeles
L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, Sec. Implement CEQA guidelines in the Environmental Affairs Department of D City. Los Angeles
Standard Specifications for Public Protect paleontological and L.A. City Planning Department Works Construction, Sec. 6-3.2 archaeological resources found during course of construction. Cultural Heritage Masterplan, Compliance with CEQA based on Cultural Heritage Commission of Los Chapter 3 determinations made by the Cultural Angeles Heritage Commission.
Notes: U.S. = United States PL = Public Law USC = United States Code NRHP = National Hispanic Recognition Program NPS = National Park Service NAHC = Native American Heritage C ommission CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
- 45 -