SOCIETY FOR CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY CLIMATE CHANGE AND CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY SERIES

TECHNICAL REPORT 2. A CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF 300 ACRES OF PACIFIC VALLEY COASTLINE, LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

October 2013

SOCIETY FOR CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY CLIMATE CHANGE AND CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY SERIES

TECHNICAL REPORT 2. A CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF 300 ACRES OF PACIFIC VALLEY COASTLINE, LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

prepared for

Robert Strickland, Archaeologist United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service, Monterey District 406 South Mildred King City, CA 93930

prepared by

Annamarie Leon Guerrero, M.A., RPA

On behalf of the

Society for California Archaeology 1691692 Mangrove Ave #153 Chico, CA 95926 and Cabrillo Community College Archaeological Program 6500 Soquel Drive, Aptos, CA 95003 October 2013

CONFIDENTIAL This report contains confidential cultural resources location information; report distribution should be restricted to those with a need to know. Cultural resources are nonrenewable, and their scientific, cultural, and aesthetic values can be significantly impaired by disturbance. To deter vandalism, artifact hunting, and other activities that can damage cultural resources, the locations of cultural resources should be kept confidential. The legal authority to restrict cultural resources information is in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 304 and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, Section 9(a). ,1752'8&7,21 ȱ ȱ For ȱ the ȱ past ȱ 30 ȱ years, ȱ climate ȱ scientists, ȱ geologists, ȱ and ȱ ecologists ȱ have ȱ tracked ȱ wide Ȭ spread ȱ global ȱ evidence ȱ for ȱ climate ȱ change. ȱ There ȱ is ȱ near Ȭunanimity ȱ within ȱ the ȱ scientific ȱ community ȱthat ȱthis ȱclimate ȱchange ȱis ȱthe ȱresult ȱof ȱCO2 ȱemissions ȱfrom ȱanthropogenic ȱsources ȱ (Anderegg ȱ et ȱ al. ȱ 2010). ȱ Recent ȱ documents ȱ by ȱ the ȱ United ȱ States ȱ National ȱ Climate ȱ Assessment ȱ Development ȱ Advisory ȱ Committee ȱ (NCADAC )ȱ and ȱ the ȱ Intergovernmental ȱ Panel ȱ on ȱ Climate ȱ Change ȱ (IPCC) ȱ indicate ȱ that ȱ global ȱ sea ȱ levels ȱ will ȱ rise ȱ between ȱ 0.5 ȱ and ȱ 2.0 ȱ mȱ over ȱ the ȱ next ȱ century ȱ(IPCC ȱ2013:13.121; ȱNCADAC ȱ2013:65). ȱȱ ȱ The ȱ Executive ȱ Board ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Society ȱ for ȱ California ȱ Archaeology ȱ (SCA) ȱ discussed ȱ the ȱ potential ȱthreats ȱsea ȱlevel ȱrise ȱposed ȱto ȱthe ȱCal ifornia’s ȱcoastal ȱarchaeological ȱresources, ȱat ȱthe ȱ 2011 ȱExecutive ȱBoard ȱMeeting ȱin ȱChico, ȱCalifornia. ȱȱ The ȱBoard ȱdecided ȱto ȱtake ȱaction ȱtowards ȱ surveying ȱ public ȱ lands ȱ along ȱ the ȱ California ȱ coast. ȱ Two ȱ concurrent ȱ exploratory ȱ areas ȱ were ȱ pursued ȱin ȱ2012, ȱMarin ȱCounty ȱand ȱLos ȱPadres ȱNational ȱForest ȱin ȱMonterey ȱCounty. ȱMichael ȱ Newland, ȱthe ȱSCA ȱPresident ȱat ȱthe ȱtime, ȱRobert ȱStrickland, ȱUnited ȱStates ȱForest ȱService ȱDistrict ȱ Archaeologist, ȱDustin ȱMcKenzie, ȱInstructor ȱin ȱArchaeology ȱat ȱCabrillo ȱCommunity ȱCollege ȱin ȱ Santa ȱ Cruz, ȱ and ȱ archaeologist ȱ Annamarie ȱ Leon ȱ Guerrero ȱ obtained ȱ Archaeological ȱ Resource ȱ Protection ȱ Act ȱ permits ȱ and ȱ organized ȱ the ȱ field ȱ effort ȱ for ȱ the ȱ Los ȱ Padres ȱ component ȱ of ȱ the ȱ climate ȱchange ȱsurvey. ȱThis ȱeffort ȱwas ȱentirely ȱaȱvolunteer ȱor ȱconductedȱthrough ȱthe ȱCabrillo ȱ College ȱ2012 ȱfield ȱschool. ȱThe ȱcurrent ȱstudy ȱsummarizes ȱthe ȱresults ȱof ȱthat ȱeffort. ȱȱȱ ȱ In ȱ June ȱ of ȱ 2012, ȱ aȱ non Ȭground ȱ disturbing ȱ cultural ȱ resources ȱ field ȱ survey ȱ of ȱ 300 ȱ acres ȱ of ȱ coastal ȱ terrace, ȱ west ȱ of ȱ Pacific ȱ Valley ȱ Station ȱ an dȱ Highway ȱ 1ȱ was ȱ conducted ȱ by ȱ the ȱ Cabrillo ȱ College ȱArchaeological ȱField ȱSchool ȱ(see ȱFigure ȱ1). ȱTheThisȱsouthern sectionȱextent of textȱof removedȱthe ȱstudy fromȱarea ȱbegins ȱ justpubliclyȱwest ȱof accessibleȱthe ȱPlaskett copiesȱCreek ofȱCampground this documentȱand ȱextends ȱ2.5 ȱmiles ȱnorthward. ȱThe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱis ȱ bound ȱto ȱthe ȱeast ȱby ȱUS ȱHighway ȱ1. ȱThe ȱwestern ȱboundary ȱis ȱrepresented ȱby ȱthe ȱsteep ȱcoastal ȱ bluff ȱline. ȱThis ȱstudy ȱwas ȱcompleted ȱin ȱorder ȱto ȱinventory ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱfor ȱcultural ȱresources ȱ and ȱ to ȱ update ȱ archaeological ȱ site ȱ records ȱ for ȱ the ȱ known ȱ cultural ȱ resources ȱ within ȱ the ȱ coastal ȱ margin. ȱPre Ȭfield ȱbackground ȱresearch ȱand ȱfield ȱsurvey ȱwere ȱconducted ȱin ȱJune ȱ2012. ȱAȱtotal ȱof ȱ 24 ȱ archaeological ȱ resources ȱ are ȱ located ȱ within ȱ the ȱ study ȱ area ȱ (see ȱ Figure ȱ 2). ȱ During ȱ the ȱ field ȱ survey, ȱfour ȱsites ȱwithin ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱwere ȱnot ȱvisited; ȱ19 ȱpreviously ȱrecorded ȱsites ȱwere ȱre Ȭ located ȱ and ȱ the ȱ site ȱ records ȱ were ȱ updated ȱ and ȱ one ȱ site ȱ was ȱ not ȱ fully ȱ re Ȭlocated ȱ and ȱ the ȱ site ȱ record ȱwas ȱupdated ȱaccordingly. ȱHi storical ȱresources ȱinventory ȱforms ȱ(California ȱDepartment ȱ of ȱParks ȱand ȱRecreation ȱ523 ȱseries ȱforms) ȱwere ȱused ȱto ȱrecord ȱor ȱupdate ȱexisting ȱsite ȱrecords ȱfor ȱ these ȱresources. ȱHistorical ȱresources ȱinventory ȱforms ȱare ȱpresented ȱin ȱAppendix ȱA. ȱ ȱ 678'<$5($/2&$7,21$1''(6&5,37,21 ȱ ȱ The ȱstudy ȱarea ȱis ȱlocated ȱwest ȱof ȱthe ȱSanta ȱLucia ȱMountain ȱrange, ȱ32 ȱmiles ȱsouth ȱof ȱBig ȱ Sur, ȱCalifornia ȱand ȱ14 ȱmiles ȱnorth ȱof ȱthe ȱSan ȱLuis ȱObispo ȱcounty ȱline; ȱalong ȱthe ȱcoastal ȱterraces ȱ of ȱsouthern ȱMonterey ȱCounty. ȱTheThisȱstudy sectionȱarea ofȱlies textȱwithin removedȱaȱportion from ȱof ȱSection ȱ12, ȱTownship ȱ23 ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 1ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ DUE TO THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THIS CONTENT, THIS PAGE WAS REMOVED FROM PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT DUE TO THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THIS CONTENT, THIS PAGE WAS REMOVED FROM PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT publiclySouth ȱand accessibleȱRange ȱ4ȱEast copiesȱas ȱwell ofȱ thisas ȱSections documentȱ7, ȱ18, ȱand ȱ19 ȱof ȱTownship ȱ23 ȱSouth ȱand ȱRange ȱ5ȱEast, ȱ as ȱdepicted ȱon ȱthe ȱUSGS ȱ7.5 Ȭminute ȱCape ȱSan ȱMartin, ȱCalifornia ȱquadrangle ȱ(see ȱFigure ȱ1). ȱThe ȱ study ȱarea ȱis ȱ300 ȱacres, ȱthe ȱsouthern ȱboundary ȱof ȱwhich ȱis ȱ0.3 ȱmile ȱsouth ȱof ȱthe ȱsouthern ȱfork ȱof ȱ Plaskett ȱCreek. ȱFrom ȱthat ȱsouthern ȱboundary, ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱextends ȱnorthward ȱfor ȱ2.5 ȱmiles, ȱ bound ȱ to ȱ the ȱ east ȱ by ȱ Pacific ȱ Coast ȱ Highway ȱ 1ȱ and ȱ to ȱ the ȱ west ȱ by ȱ steep ȱ coastal ȱ bluffs ȱ that ȱ overlook ȱ the ȱ Pacific ȱ Ocean. ȱ The ȱ study ȱ area ȱ itself ȱ is ȱ relatively ȱ flat, ȱ primarily ȱ maintaining ȱ an ȱ elevation ȱof ȱ100 ȱft. ȱabove ȱmean ȱsea ȱlevel ȱ(amsl), ȱdown ȱthe ȱcenter ȱlineȱ(north ȱ/ȱsouth) ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱ area. ȱ In ȱ or der ȱ to ȱ betterȱ manage ȱ th eȱ field ȱ survey, ȱ Prewitt ȱ Creek ȱ was ȱ used ȱ as ȱ an ȱ arbitrary ȱ geographic ȱ feature ȱ to ȱ divide ȱ the ȱ study ȱ area ȱ into ȱ two ȱ portions. ȱ The ȱ portion ȱ to ȱ the ȱ north ȱ of ȱ Prewitt ȱCreek ȱis ȱreferred ȱto ȱas ȱthe ȱno rthern ȱportion ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱand ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱsouth ȱof ȱ the ȱcreek ȱis ȱreferred ȱto ȱas ȱthe ȱsouthern ȱportion ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱWithin ȱthe ȱnorthern ȱportion ȱof ȱ the ȱstudy ȱarea, ȱthe ȱelevation ȱranges ȱfromȱ100 ȱ–ȱ120 ȱft. ȱamsl ȱalong ȱthe ȱeastern ȱboundary ȱto ȱ20 ȱft. ȱ amsl ȱalong ȱthe ȱwestern ȱextent. ȱIn ȱthe ȱsouthern ȱhalf ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea, ȱthe ȱelevation ȱranges ȱfrom ȱ 160 ȱft. ȱamsl. ȱalong ȱthe ȱeastern ȱextent ȱto ȱ20 ȱft. ȱamsl ȱin ȱcertain ȱareas ȱalong ȱthe ȱwestern ȱextent ȱof ȱ the ȱ study ȱ area. ȱ The ȱ topography ȱ and ȱ vegetation ȱ can ȱ be ȱ primarily ȱ characterized ȱ by ȱ flat, ȱ open ȱ terraces ȱcovered ȱwith ȱtall ȱinvasive ȱEuropean ȱgrasses ȱand ȱnative ȱplant Ȭlife ȱwith ȱpockets ȱof ȱdense ȱ and ȱ impenetrable ȱ chaparral ȱ that ȱ includes ȱ coyote ȱ brush ȱ and ȱ poison ȱ oak. ȱ The ȱ study ȱ area ȱ encompasses ȱ two ȱ main ȱ watersheds, ȱ Plaskett ȱ and ȱ Prewitt ȱ Creek ȱ and ȱ several ȱ other ȱ minor ȱ drainage ȱsystems. ȱȱ ȱ The ȱ study ȱ area ȱ lies ȱ ensconced ȱ within ȱ the ȱ continental ȱ margin ȱ of ȱ Northern ȱ California, ȱ adjacent ȱto ȱthe ȱCalifornia ȱCoastal ȱRange ȱalong ȱthe ȱcentral ȱcoast. ȱThe ȱCoastal ȱRanges ȱare ȱover ȱ 500 ȱ miles ȱ in ȱ length; ȱ their ȱ northern ȱ origin ȱ overlapping ȱ with ȱ the ȱ southern ȱ end ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Klamath ȱ Mountains ȱand ȱtheir ȱsouthern ȱextent ȱlocated ȱin ȱthe ȱSanta ȱBarbara ȱarea, ȱnear ȱPoint ȱConception. ȱ The ȱRanges ȱrise ȱfromȱsea ȱlevel ȱto ȱan ȱelevation ȱof ȱnearly ȱ6000 ȱfeet, ȱseparating ȱthe ȱcoast ȱfrom ȱthe ȱ Central ȱ Valley. ȱ The ȱ Coastal ȱ Ranges ȱ are ȱ comprised ȱ of ȱ northwest ȱ to ȱ southeast ȱ trending ȱ ridges ȱ and ȱ valleys ȱ that ȱ are ȱ associated ȱ with ȱ folding ȱ and ȱ faulting ȱ (Schoenherr ȱ 1992:262). ȱ Along ȱ the ȱ coastal ȱmargin, ȱthe ȱRanges ȱare ȱcharacterized ȱby ȱaȱseries ȱof ȱold ȱwave Ȭcut ȱbenches ȱthat ȱhave ȱbeen ȱ uplifted ȱby ȱthe ȱrising ȱof ȱthe ȱland ȱin ȱthe ȱform ȱof ȱcoastal ȱterraces ȱ(Schoenhe rr ȱ1992:7). ȱȱ ȱ The ȱ California ȱ Coastal ȱ Ranges ȱ consists ȱ of ȱ two ȱ core ȱ complexes, ȱ aȱ Franciscan ȱ assemblage ȱ and ȱ aȱ granitic Ȭmetamorphic ȱ complex. ȱ The ȱ granitic Ȭmetamorphic ȱ complex ȱ is ȱ comprised ȱ of ȱ granitic ȱ and ȱ metamorphosed ȱ rocks ȱ (Page ȱ 1966: 255). ȱ The ȱ nearby ȱ Santa ȱ Lucia ȱ Mountain ȱ range ȱ contains ȱ the ȱ earliest ȱ geologic ȱ history ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Coastal ȱ Range ȱ in ȱ the ȱ form ȱ of ȱ metamorphic ȱ rocks ȱ named ȱthe ȱSur ȱSeries. ȱRocks ȱwithin ȱthis ȱseries ȱinclude ȱgneisses, ȱschists, ȱmarbles, ȱquartzites ȱand ȱ granulites ȱ(Page ȱ1966:257). ȱThe ȱage ȱof ȱmetamorphic ȱro cks ȱis ȱactually ȱunknown. ȱThe ȱpossibility ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Paleozoic ȱ age ȱ has ȱ been ȱ suggested ȱ by ȱ dating ȱ poorly ȱ preserved ȱ corals ȱ and ȱ crinoids ȱ fragments ȱ in ȱ marble ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Gabilan ȱ Range. ȱ The ȱ Santa ȱ Lucia ȱ Range, ȱ along ȱ with ȱ the ȱ La ȱ Panza, ȱ Gabilan ȱ and ȱ Santa ȱ Cruz ȱ Ranges, ȱ contains ȱ extensive ȱ exposures ȱ of ȱ granitic ȱ rock. ȱ Granitic ȱ formations ȱconsist ȱof ȱaȱvariety ȱof ȱplutons, ȱsuch ȱas ȱquartz ȱdiorite, ȱadamellite ȱand ȱpotassic ȱgranite ȱ (Page ȱ 1966:257). ȱ Overall, ȱ the ȱ granitic Ȭmetamorphic ȱ complex ȱ is ȱ overlain ȱ by ȱ Upper ȱ Cretaceous ȱ strata. ȱ(Page ȱ1966:258). ȱȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 2ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ In ȱ opposition ȱ to ȱ this ȱ granitic Ȭmetamorphic ȱ complex ȱ is ȱ the ȱ Franciscan ȱ eugeosynclinal ȱ complex. ȱ The ȱ Franciscan ȱ complex ȱ is ȱ described ȱ as ȱ aȱ “disorderly ȱ assemblage ȱ of ȱ various ȱ characteristic ȱ rocks ȱ that ȱ have ȱ undergone ȱ unsystematic ȱ disturbance” ȱ (Page ȱ 1966:258). ȱ The ȱ Franciscan ȱ complex ȱ is ȱ characterized ȱ by ȱ sandstone, ȱ volcanics, ȱ limestone ȱ and ȱ chert. ȱ Franciscan ȱ chert ȱis ȱaȱchalcedonic ȱquartz. ȱCherts ȱare ȱclosely ȱjointed ȱroc ks, ȱthin ȱbedded ȱand ȱoften ȱobserved ȱ in ȱ reds ȱ or ȱ greens ȱ an dȱ associated ȱ with ȱ greenstone ȱ (Page ȱ 1966:259). ȱ Uncommon ȱ types ȱ of ȱ metamorphic ȱ rocks ȱ also ȱ contribute ȱ to ȱ the ȱ Franciscan ȱ complex. ȱ Examples ȱ of ȱ anomalous ȱ metamorphic ȱ rock ȱ include ȱ jadeitized ȱ greywacke, ȱ eclogite ȱ and ȱ glaucopane Ȭbearing ȱ rocks. ȱ Associated ȱ with ȱ the ȱ Franciscan ȱ complex ȱ are ȱ ultramafic ȱ bodies ȱ and ȱ serpentine. ȱ ȱ Resear ch ȱ has ȱ indicated ȱthat ȱthe ȱrocks ȱfrom ȱthis ȱcore ȱcomplex ȱcan ȱrange ȱfrom ȱthe ȱuppermost ȱJurassic ȱto ȱthe ȱ lower ȱUpper ȱCretaceous ȱ(Page ȱ1966:260). ȱȱ ȱ The ȱcontinental ȱmargin ȱis ȱbordered ȱby ȱthe ȱCalifornia ȱCoast ȱRange, ȱwhich ȱitself ȱis ȱbounded ȱ by ȱ the ȱ Transverse ȱ Ranges ȱ to ȱ the ȱ south ȱ and ȱ by ȱ the ȱ Klamath ȱ Mountains ȱ to ȱ the ȱ north. ȱ The ȱ arbitrary ȱwe stern ȱedge ȱof ȱthe ȱcoastal ȱmargin ȱis ȱthe ȱ1,600 ȱfm ȱcontour ȱline, ȱwhich ȱis ȱwhere ȱthe ȱ steeper ȱcontinental ȱslope ȱjoins ȱthe ȱlower ȱdeclivity ȱof ȱthe ȱcontinental ȱrise ȱ(Rusnak ȱ1966:325). ȱDue ȱ to ȱthe ȱlevel ȱof ȱdifficulty ȱassociated ȱwith ȱstudying ȱthe ȱsubmerged ȱcoastal ȱmargin, ȱmore ȱresearch ȱ has ȱ been ȱ devot edȱ to ȱ its ȱ onshore ȱ counterpart. ȱ However, ȱ the ȱ geologic ȱ relations ȱ of ȱ the ȱ coastal ȱ margin ȱare ȱstill ȱnot ȱentirely ȱwell ȱunderstood. ȱThis ȱis ȱin ȱpart ȱbecause ȱof ȱthe ȱcomplexity ȱof ȱthe ȱ Franciscan ȱassemblage ȱ(Rusnak ȱ1966:325). ȱThe ȱtype ȱof ȱcontinental ȱmargin ȱalong ȱnorthern ȱand ȱ central ȱCalifornia ȱis ȱaȱcommon ȱtype ȱof ȱmargin ȱbut ȱactually ȱatypical ȱfor ȱthe ȱPacific ȱOcean. ȱThe ȱ Pacific ȱmargin ȱalong ȱmost ȱof ȱNorth ȱAmerica ȱis ȱmorphologically ȱsimilar ȱto ȱthe ȱmargins ȱof ȱthe ȱ Atlantic ȱand ȱIndian ȱOceans. ȱThese ȱmargins ȱare ȱtypified ȱby ȱbroad ȱto ȱintermediate ȱwidth ȱshelves ȱ and ȱaȱrise ȱor ȱseries ȱof ȱdeep Ȭsea ȱfans ȱat ȱthe ȱbase ȱof ȱthe ȱslope ȱ(Curray ȱ1966:337). ȱThe ȱDelgadaȱand ȱ Monterey ȱfans ȱhave ȱfilled ȱand ȱburied ȱany ȱoceanic ȱdepressions ȱor ȱtrenches ȱthat ȱmay ȱhave ȱexisted ȱ at ȱ the ȱ base ȱ of ȱ the ȱ slope ȱ in ȱ this ȱ area, ȱ which ȱ constitute ȱ the ȱ continental ȱ rise ȱ within ȱ the ȱ vicinity ȱ (Curray ȱ1966:337). ȱȱ ȱ The ȱ diverse ȱ geologic ȱ formation ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Coast ȱ Ranges ȱ contributes ȱ to ȱ the ȱ uniqu eȱ soil ȱ formation ȱof ȱthe ȱcoastal ȱmargin. ȱSoil, ȱaȱcombination ȱof ȱorganic ȱand ȱmineral ȱmatter, ȱis ȱformed ȱby ȱ climate, ȱ animal ȱ and ȱ human ȱ interaction ȱ upon ȱ the ȱ earth’s ȱ surface, ȱ topography, ȱ physical ȱ and ȱ chemical ȱ properties ȱ of ȱ the ȱ parent ȱ material, ȱ and ȱ the ȱ time ȱ and ȱ length ȱ that ȱ each ȱ of ȱ these ȱ forces ȱ have ȱbeen ȱworking. ȱParent ȱmateria lȱis ȱidentifiedȱas ȱthe ȱmaterial ȱthat ȱhas ȱaccumulated ȱthrough ȱ the ȱweathering ȱof ȱrock ȱformations ȱand ȱalluvial ȱdeposits ȱover ȱtime ȱand ȱevolves ȱinto ȱsoils. ȱAlong ȱ the ȱvery ȱwestern ȱedge ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea, ȱthe ȱsoil ȱconsists ȱof ȱbeach ȱsands ȱcreated ȱby ȱwave ȱaction ȱ and ȱnearby ȱeroding ȱslopes. ȱMoving ȱjust ȱinland ȱoff ȱof ȱthe ȱbeach ȱareas, ȱthe ȱsoil ȱis ȱcharacterized ȱas ȱ Pacheco ȱ clay ȱ loam. ȱ The ȱ majority ȱ of ȱ the ȱ study ȱ area ȱ is ȱ then ȱ Lockwood ȱ shale ȱ loam. ȱ There ȱ is ȱ aȱ section ȱof ȱland, ȱborderingȱthe ȱconcave ȱportion ȱof ȱthe ȱbay ȱto ȱHighway ȱ1, ȱthat ȱis ȱcharacterized ȱas ȱ cobbly ȱriver ȱgravel ȱdeposits. ȱThis ȱsmall ȱterrace ȱoccurs ȱat ȱthe ȱbase ȱof ȱan ȱeast ȱto ȱwestȱtrending ȱ ridgeline. ȱThe ȱentire ȱstudy ȱarea ȱalso ȱcontains ȱareas ȱthat ȱare ȱcategorized ȱas ȱrock ȱoutcrops ȱof ȱthe ȱ Xerothent ȱassociation ȱ(USDA ȱ2012). ȱȱ ȱ Coastal ȱbeaches ȱare ȱcomprised ȱof ȱȱ sand ȱand ȱgravel ȱand ȱare ȱlocated ȱalong ȱthe ȱtoeslopes ȱof ȱ landforms ȱ (USDA ȱ 2012). ȱ Pacheco ȱ clay ȱ loam ȱ is ȱ found ȱ at ȱ elevations ȱ ranging ȱ from ȱ 10 ȱ to ȱ 400 ȱ ft. ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 3ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ amsl ȱand ȱare ȱfound ȱon ȱthe ȱtoeslopes ȱof ȱlandforms ȱas ȱwell. ȱThey ȱare ȱsomewhat ȱpoorly ȱdrained ȱ although, ȱif ȱirrigated, ȱconsidered ȱprime ȱfarmland. ȱThe ȱparent ȱmaterial ȱfor ȱPacheco ȱclay ȱloam ȱis ȱ fine Ȭloamy ȱ alluvium ȱ derived ȱ from ȱ sedimentary ȱ rock ȱ (USDA ȱ 2012). ȱ Lockwood ȱ shale ȱ loam ȱ is ȱ found ȱon ȱelevations ȱfrom ȱ100 ȱto ȱ2,000 ȱft. ȱamsl ȱon ȱthe ȱfootslope ȱof ȱlandforms ȱand ȱon ȱtwo ȱto ȱnine ȱ percent ȱslopes. ȱIt ȱis ȱaȱwell Ȭdrained ȱsoil ȱoriginating ȱfrom ȱfine Ȭloamy ȱalluvium ȱderived ȱfrom ȱshale ȱ (USDA ȱ 2012). ȱ Cobbly ȱ river ȱ gravel ȱ deposits ȱ are ȱ found ȱ on ȱ aȱ toeslope ȱ of ȱ aȱ floodplain ȱ and ȱ are ȱ derived ȱfrom ȱmixed ȱalluvium ȱparent ȱmaterials. ȱIt ȱis ȱfound ȱon ȱslopes ȱbetween ȱ0ȱand ȱ15 ȱpercent ȱ and ȱis ȱan ȱexcessively ȱdrained ȱsoil ȱ(USDA ȱ2012). ȱRock ȱoutcrops ȱwith ȱaȱXerothent ȱassociation ȱcan ȱ be ȱfound ȱthroughout ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱSuch ȱoutcrops ȱcan ȱbe ȱfound ȱon ȱthe ȱbackslope ȱand ȱflanks ȱof ȱ mountains ȱat ȱelevations ȱranging ȱanywhere ȱfromȱ0ȱto ȱ5,800 ȱft. ȱamsl ȱ(USDA ȱ2012). ȱIts ȱXerothent ȱ association ȱindicates ȱthat ȱits ȱparent ȱmaterial ȱis ȱresiduum ȱweathered ȱfromȱigneous, ȱmetamorphic ȱ and ȱsedimentary ȱrock ȱ(USDA ȱ2012). ȱȱ ȱ ȱ The ȱunique ȱcombination ȱof ȱminerals ȱthat ȱbreak ȱdown ȱinto ȱimpoverished ȱsoil ȱprovides ȱthe ȱ coastal ȱ margin ȱ with ȱ aȱ unique ȱ vegetation ȱ community ȱ (Schoenherr ȱ 1992:7). ȱ The ȱ study ȱ area ȱ encompasses ȱ aȱ maritime ȱ chaparral ȱ community ȱ and ȱ coastal ȱ sagebrush ȱ (Küchler ȱ 1977:22; ȱ Schoenherr ȱ 1992:273). ȱ This ȱ community ȱ is ȱ typified ȱ by ȱ moderately ȱ dense ȱ communities ȱ of ȱ drought Ȭresistant ȱ deciduous ȱ shrubs ȱ along ȱ the ȱ central ȱ and ȱ southern ȱ California ȱ coastline. ȱ In ȱ Monterey, ȱthis ȱvegetation ȱcommunity ȱoccurs ȱin ȱsandy ȱsoil, ȱon ȱremnants ȱof ȱPleistocene ȱsand ȱand ȱ dunes ȱ along ȱ the ȱ coast ȱ (Schoenherr ȱ 1992:273). ȱ This ȱ maritime ȱ chaparral ȱ includes ȱ aȱ variety ȱ of ȱ manza nitas ȱ (Arc tostaphylos ȱ spp.) ȱ and ȱ California ȱ lilacs ȱ (Ceanothus ȱ spp) ȱ (Schoenherr ȱ 1992:273). ȱ While ȱthis ȱtype ȱof ȱcoastal ȱscrub ȱand ȱmaritime ȱchaparral ȱcharacterizes ȱthe ȱvegetation ȱwithin ȱthe ȱ study ȱarea, ȱthe ȱcoastline ȱvegetation ȱalong ȱMonterey ȱCounty ȱand ȱin ȱnorthern ȱSan ȱLuis ȱObispo ȱ County ȱcan ȱinclude ȱaȱmixed ȱhardwood ȱand ȱredwood ȱforest, ȱsouthern ȱoak ȱforest, ȱcoastal ȱcypress ȱ and ȱpine ȱforests ȱ(Küchler ȱ1977: ȱ9, ȱ19 ,ȱ20). ȱȱ ȱ &8/785$/6(77,1*  Over ȱthe ȱpast ȱtwo ȱdecades, ȱthere ȱhas ȱbeen ȱaȱsteady ȱincrease ȱin ȱarchaeological ȱresearch ȱin ȱthe ȱ central ȱ coast ȱ region. ȱ This ȱ has ȱ permitted ȱ the ȱ construction ȱ of ȱ aȱ comprehensive ȱ regional ȱ culture ȱ history. ȱJones ȱet ȱal. ȱ(2007) ȱis ȱperhaps ȱthe ȱmost ȱinclusive ȱwork ȱto ȱdate ȱand ȱincorporates ȱthe ȱlast ȱ few ȱ decades’ ȱ major ȱ studies ȱ of ȱ the ȱ central ȱ coast ȱ region. ȱ The ȱ system ȱ presented ȱ in ȱ that ȱ work ȱ identifies ȱsix ȱperiods, ȱas ȱwell ȱas ȱrecognizing ȱlocally ȱdefined ȱphases ȱand ȱregional ȱcultures ȱ(Jones ȱ et ȱal. ȱ2007:134). ȱThe ȱfollowing ȱdiscussion ȱis ȱadapted ȱfrom ȱJones ȱet ȱal. ȱ(2007:134 Ȭ149) ȱwho ȱdivide ȱ area ȱprehistory ȱinto ȱsix ȱperiods, ȱeach ȱcharacterized ȱby ȱits ȱown ȱartifact ȱassemblage: ȱȱ ȱ Late ȱ(cal ȱA.D. ȱ125 0ȱto ȱ1769) ȱ ȱ Middle/Late ȱTransition ȱ(cal ȱA.D. ȱ1000 ȱto ȱ1250) ȱ Middle ȱ(600 ȱcal ȱB.C. ȱto ȱcal ȱA.D. ȱ1000) ȱ Early ȱ(3500 ȱto ȱ600 ȱcal ȱB.C.) ȱ AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 4ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Millingstone ȱ(or ȱEarly ȱArchaic) ȱ(8000 ȱto ȱ3500 ȱcal ȱB.C.) ȱ Paleo ȬIndian ȱ(pre Ȭ8000 ȱcal ȱB.C.) ȱ ȱ ȱ The ȱEarly, ȱMiddle, ȱand ȱLate ȱPeriod ȱdivisions ȱreflect ȱlong Ȭstanding ȱperceptions ȱof ȱcentral ȱ California ȱ prehistory ȱ that ȱ are ȱ rooted ȱ in ȱ work ȱ dating ȱ back ȱ to ȱ the ȱ 1930s, ȱ when ȱ three ȱ superimposed ȱ archaeological ȱ cultures ȱ were ȱ identified ȱ in ȱ the ȱ lower ȱ Sacramento ȱ Valley/Delta ȱ (Lillard ȱand ȱPurves ȱ1936; ȱLillard ȱet ȱal. ȱ1939). ȱSince ȱthen, ȱEarly, ȱMidd le, ȱand ȱLate ȱPeriods ȱhave ȱ been ȱ delineated ȱ on ȱ the ȱ basis ȱ of ȱ distinctive ȱ bead ȱ types. ȱ The ȱ Early ȱ Period ȱ is ȱ marked ȱ by ȱ thick ȱ rectangular ȱ(Class ȱL) ȱOlivella ȱbeads, ȱthe ȱMiddle ȱPeriod ȱis ȱmarked ȱby ȱnormal ȱsaucer ȱ(G2) ȱOlivella ȱ beads, ȱ and ȱ Late ȱ Period ȱ is ȱ marked ȱ by ȱ lip ped ȱ (Class ȱ E) ȱ and ȱ cupped ȱ (Class ȱ K) ȱ Olivella ȱ beads ȱ (Bennyhoff ȱand ȱHughes ȱ1987) ȱand ȱsteatite ȱdisks. ȱ ȱ Broader ȱperiods ȱin ȱthe ȱregional ȱprehistory ȱare ȱreflected ȱin ȱthree ȱmajor ȱcultural ȱdivisions ȱ marked ȱby ȱhighly ȱdistinctive ȱtool ȱassemblages: ȱthe ȱMillingstone ȱCulture, ȱthe ȱHunting ȱCulture, ȱ and ȱLate ȱPeriod. ȱȱ

0LOOLQJVWRQH&XOWXUH WRFDO %&  ȱ The ȱ Millingstone ȱ culture ȱ is ȱ marked ȱ by ȱ large ȱ numbers ȱ of ȱ well Ȭmade ȱ handstones ȱ and/or ȱ milling ȱ slabs, ȱ crude ȱ core ȱ and ȱ cobble Ȭcore ȱ tools, ȱ and ȱ less ȱ abundant ȱ flake ȱ tools ȱ and ȱ large ȱ side Ȭ notched ȱ projectile ȱ points. ȱ Some ȱ Millingstone ȱ sites ȱ also ȱ exhibit ȱ pitted ȱ stones ȱ and ȱ contracting Ȭ stemmed ȱpoints. ȱThe ȱoldest ȱknown ȱexpressions ȱof ȱthis ȱculture ȱin ȱthe ȱCentral ȱCoast ȱregion ȱare ȱ found ȱin ȱsouthern ȱSan ȱLouis ȱObispo ȱCounty. ȱThree ȱhuman ȱbur ials ȱfro mȱthe ȱdeepest ȱlevels ȱof ȱ one ȱof ȱthese ȱsites, ȱSLO Ȭ2, ȱare ȱamong ȱthe ȱoldest ȱin ȱCalifornia. ȱOther ȱMillingstone ȱcomponents ȱ have ȱbeen ȱfound ȱin ȱat ȱleast ȱ42 ȱsites ȱin ȱMonterey, ȱSanta ȱClara, ȱand ȱSanta ȱCruz ȱcounties. ȱThey ȱ occur ȱin ȱaȱrange ȱof ȱsettings ȱincluding ȱrocky ȱcoastline, ȱestuaries, ȱpaleoestuaries, ȱand ȱnearshore ȱ interior ȱvalleys, ȱthough ȱaȱfew ȱare ȱlocated ȱmore ȱthan ȱ15 ȱmi. ȱ(25 ȱkm.) ȱinland ȱfrom ȱthe ȱshore. ȱSome ȱ of ȱthese ȱsites ȱsuggest ȱthat ȱthe ȱculture ȱmay ȱhave ȱpersisted ȱuntil ȱ3000 ȱcal ȱB.C. ȱwithin ȱthe ȱregion ȱ (Jones ȱet ȱal. ȱ2007:135). ȱȱ ȱ Faunal ȱremains ȱindicate ȱthat ȱMillingstone ȱpeople ȱpracticed ȱbroad Ȭspectrum ȱhunting ȱand ȱ gathering, ȱexploiting ȱshellfish, ȱfish, ȱbirds, ȱand ȱmammals. ȱHowever, ȱrobust ȱfaunal ȱassemblages ȱ are ȱ not ȱ common, ȱ especially ȱ inland ȱ where ȱ preservation ȱ is ȱ poor. ȱ At ȱ the ȱ oldest ȱ sites, ȱ shellfish ȱ represent ȱaȱsignificant ȱportion ȱof ȱthe ȱremains, ȱsupplemented ȱby ȱdeer, ȱbirds, ȱrabbits,ȱand ȱrocky ȱ coast ȱfish ȱat ȱcoastal ȱsites. ȱOther ȱmore ȱrecent ȱMillingstone ȱcomponents ȱare ȱdominated ȱby ȱeither ȱ deer ȱor ȱrabbit. ȱOne ȱstudy ȱof ȱMillingstone Ȭera ȱburials ȱinferred, ȱthrough ȱstable ȱisotope ȱanalysis, ȱaȱ diet ȱ composed ȱ of ȱ 70 Ȭ84 ȱ percent ȱ marine ȱ food ȱ (Jones ȱ et ȱ al. ȱ 2007:137 Ȭ138). ȱ This ȱ conclusion ȱ is ȱ supported ȱby ȱthe ȱdense ȱconcentrations ȱof ȱshell ȱin ȱmany ȱdeposits. ȱ

+XQWLQJ&XOWXUH  FDO%&WRFDO$'  ȱ The ȱHunting ȱCulture ȱspans ȱthe ȱEarly ȱand ȱMiddle ȱPeriods. ȱIn ȱcontrast ȱto ȱMillingstone, ȱthe ȱ Hunting ȱ Culture ȱ is ȱ marked ȱ by ȱ great ȱ quantities ȱ of ȱ stemmed ȱ and ȱ notched ȱ projectile ȱ points, ȱ especially ȱpoints ȱof ȱlarge ȱsize. ȱProjectile ȱpoints ȱand ȱother ȱformal ȱartifacts ȱare ȱused ȱas ȱmarkers ȱof ȱ discrete ȱphases ȱin ȱHunti ngȱCulture ȱtypologies. ȱThe ȱEarly ȱPeriod ȱis ȱmarked ȱby ȱthe ȱco Ȭoccurrence ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 5ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ of ȱcontracting Ȭstemmed ȱand ȱRossi ȱsquare Ȭstemmed ȱpoints, ȱand ȱlarge ȱside Ȭnotched ȱvariants ȱ(as ȱaȱ holdover ȱfrom ȱMillingstone). ȱGround ȱstone ȱassemblages ȱshow ȱthe ȱretention ȱof ȱhandstones ȱand ȱ milling ȱslabs, ȱalong ȱwith ȱpitted ȱstones. ȱCobble Ȭcore ȱtools ȱreduce ȱin ȱfrequency. ȱPortable ȱmortars ȱ and ȱ pestles ȱ appear ȱ for ȱ the ȱ first ȱ time, ȱ as ȱ well ȱ as ȱ bone ȱ gorges ȱ for ȱ line ȱ fi shing ȱ and ȱ rectangular ȱ (Class ȱL) ȱOlivella ȱbeads. ȱBurials ȱare ȱgenerally ȱin ȱflexed ȱposition ȱ(Jones ȱet ȱal. ȱ2007:138). ȱȱ ȱ The ȱMiddle ȱPeriod ȱis ȱmarked ȱby ȱthe ȱgradual ȱdisappearance ȱof ȱsquare Ȭstemmed ȱand ȱlarge ȱ side Ȭnotched ȱ variants, ȱ but ȱ contracting Ȭstemmed ȱ points, ȱ slabs ȱ and ȱ handstones, ȱ and ȱ portable ȱ mortars ȱ and ȱ pestles ȱ are ȱ all ȱ retained. ȱ Circular ȱ shell ȱ fishhooks ȱ appear ȱ for ȱ the ȱ first ȱ time, ȱ and ȱ grooved ȱ stone ȱ net ȱ sink ers ȱ are ȱ also ȱ common. ȱ Saucer Ȭshaped ȱ (G2) ȱ Olivella ȱ beads ȱ replace ȱ the ȱ earlier ȱ rectangular ȱ style. ȱ Pitted ȱ stones ȱ are ȱ often ȱ the ȱ most ȱ abundant ȱ artifact ȱ in ȱ Middle ȱ Period ȱ sites. ȱBurials ȱare ȱflexed, ȱand ȱbone ȱflutes ȱare ȱoften ȱfound ȱaccompanying ȱthem. ȱToward ȱthe ȱend ȱof ȱ the ȱMiddle ȱPeriod, ȱsmall ȱleaf Ȭshape ȱprojectile ȱpoints ȱbegin ȱto ȱappear, ȱma rking ȱthe ȱarrival ȱof ȱthe ȱ bow ȱ and ȱ arrow. ȱ To ȱ date, ȱ at ȱ least ȱ 157 ȱ Central ȱ Coast ȱ region ȱ sites ȱ show ȱ evidence ȱ of ȱ Hunting ȱ Culture ȱoccupation. ȱAs ȱwith ȱMillingstone Ȭcomponent ȱsites, ȱmost ȱof ȱthese ȱare ȱlocated ȱnear ȱto ȱthe ȱ shoreline; ȱ however, ȱ large ȱ Hunting ȱ Culture ȱ deposits ȱ are ȱ also ȱ present ȱ in ȱ peri Ȭcoastal ȱ valleys ȱ (Jones ȱet ȱal. ȱ2007:139). ȱȱ ȱ Faunal ȱassemblages ȱfromȱHunting ȱCulture ȱsites ȱdisplay ȱsome ȱvariability. ȱMost ȱEarly ȱand ȱ Middle ȱPeriod ȱdeposits ȱare ȱdominated ȱby ȱdeer, ȱalthough ȱrabbits ȱand ȱsea ȱotters ȱare ȱplentiful ȱat ȱ certain ȱ sites. ȱ Fish ȱ remains ȱ increase ȱ in ȱ Early ȱ Period ȱ components, ȱ but ȱ appear ȱ in ȱ much ȱ greater ȱ concentrations ȱ by ȱ the ȱ Middle ȱ Period. ȱ Shellfish ȱ still ȱ occur ȱ at ȱ all ȱ coastal ȱ sites ȱ dating ȱ to ȱ these ȱ periods, ȱbut ȱappear ȱto ȱhave ȱdecreased ȱin ȱimportance. ȱAcorns ȱwere ȱused ȱto ȱan ȱunknown ȱdegree ȱ (Jones ȱet ȱal. ȱ2007:139 Ȭ140). ȱ

/DWH3HULRG FDO$'WR  ȱ Late ȱPeriod ȱsite ȱcomponents ȱare ȱdistinguished ȱfrom ȱthose ȱof ȱthe ȱHunting ȱCulture ȱby ȱthe ȱ profusion ȱ of ȱ Desert ȱ side Ȭnotched ȱ and ȱ Cottonwood ȱ arrowȱ points, ȱ small ȱ bifacial ȱ bead ȱ drills, ȱ bedrock ȱmortars, ȱhopper ȱmortars, ȱlipped ȱ(Class ȱE) ȱand ȱcupped ȱ(Class ȱK) ȱOlivella ȱbeads. ȱMost ȱ sites ȱ dating ȱ to ȱ this ȱ period ȱ produce ȱ at ȱ least ȱ aȱ few ȱ bead ȱ drills ȱ and ȱ small ȱ amounts ȱ of ȱ bead ȱ manufacturing ȱdebris, ȱindicating ȱthat ȱbead ȱproduction ȱwas ȱcommon ȱand ȱwidespread. ȱCircula rȱ shell ȱ fishhooks ȱ continued ȱ to ȱ be ȱ used, ȱ and ȱ there ȱ is ȱ some ȱ evidence ȱ for ȱ the ȱ persistence ȱ of ȱ contracting Ȭstemmed ȱpoints ȱ(Jones ȱet ȱal. ȱ2007:140). ȱ ȱ The ȱLate ȱPeriod ȱin ȱthe ȱCentral ȱCoast ȱregion ȱis ȱmarked ȱby ȱaȱprofusion ȱof ȱsingle Ȭcomponent ȱ sites ȱin ȱthe ȱinterior, ȱwith ȱfewer ȱsite sȱlocated ȱon ȱthe ȱcoast. ȱLate ȱPeriod ȱcomponents ȱhave ȱbeen ȱ recognized ȱ in ȱ at ȱ least ȱ 157 ȱ sites, ȱ several ȱ of ȱ which ȱ are ȱ located ȱ in ȱ the ȱ interior ȱ ranges. ȱ Typical ȱ occupations ȱare ȱdistinguished ȱby ȱsmall ȱmiddens ȱwith ȱassociated ȱor ȱnearby ȱbedrock ȱmortars. ȱAs ȱ with ȱearlier ȱperiods, ȱresidential ȱfeatures ȱare ȱnot ȱcommon. ȱSmall ȱcirc ularȱhouse ȱfloors ȱmeasuring ȱ 3ȱ –ȱ 4ȱ mȱ in ȱ diameter ȱ have ȱ been ȱ identified ȱ at ȱ both ȱ coastal ȱ and ȱ interior ȱ sites. ȱ Assemblages, ȱ site ȱ types, ȱand ȱsettlements ȱdating ȱto ȱthis ȱperiod ȱshow ȱstrong ȱconsistency ȱacross ȱthe ȱentire ȱregion, ȱ despite ȱ the ȱ pronounced ȱ linguistic ȱ variability ȱ between ȱ groups ȱ that ȱ lived ȱ here ȱ at ȱ the ȱ time ȱ of ȱ European ȱcontact ȱ(Jones ȱet ȱal. ȱ2007:140). ȱȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 6ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ (7+12*5$3+,&29(59,(: ȱ Ethnographic ȱ literature ȱ indicates ȱ that ȱ at ȱ the ȱ time ȱ of ȱ historic ȱ contact, ȱ the ȱ study ȱ area ȱ was ȱ within ȱ the ȱ traditional ȱ territory ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Salinan ȱ peoples ȱ who ȱ occupied ȱ the ȱ rugged ȱ and ȱ mountainous ȱ area ȱ of ȱ the ȱ south Ȭcentral ȱ California ȱ coastline ȱ and ȱ the ȱ heavily ȱ wooded ȱ hills ȱ and ȱ mountains ȱof ȱthe ȱinterior ȱof ȱthe ȱSouth ȱCoast ȱRanges ȱ(Hester ȱ1978:500). ȱEthnographic ȱdata ȱdo ȱnot ȱ provide ȱ aȱ definitive ȱ geographic ȱ territory ȱ for ȱ the ȱ Salinan ȱ and, ȱ in ȱ fact, ȱ the ȱ exact ȱ extent ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Salinan ȱterritory ȱhas ȱbeen ȱdebated ȱ(Hester ȱ1978:500). ȱKroeber ȱproposes ȱaȱfairly ȱextensive ȱview ȱ of ȱthe ȱSalinan ȱterritory ȱbased ȱupon ȱlinguistics ȱ(Kroeber ȱ1925:546). ȱKroeber ȱdefined ȱthe ȱreach ȱof ȱ the ȱSalinan ȱlanguage ȱto ȱbe ȱfrom ȱthe ȱheadwaters ȱof ȱthe ȱSalinas, ȱor ȱfrom ȱthe ȱapproximate ȱvicinity ȱ of ȱthe ȱSanta ȱMargarita ȱdivide, ȱnorthward ȱtowards ȱthe ȱSanta ȱLucia ȱPeak ȱand ȱextending ȱinland ȱ towards ȱthe ȱregion ȱof ȱsouth ȱSoledad ȱ(Kroeber ȱ1925:546). ȱKroeber ȱargued ȱthat ȱwithin ȱthe ȱSalinan ȱ language, ȱthere ȱare ȱtwo ȱmain ȱdialectal ȱdivisions; ȱone ȱdialect ȱwas ȱspoken ȱin ȱthe ȱmountains ȱand ȱ valleys ȱ and ȱ another ȱ dialect, ȱ dubbed ȱ aȱ “’Play ano’ ȱ or ȱ ‘beach’” ȱ dialect ȱ was ȱ spoken ȱ (Kroeber ȱ 1925:546). ȱThe ȱdialect ȱthat ȱwas ȱspoken ȱin ȱthe ȱvalley ȱand ȱmountains ȱcan ȱbe ȱfurther ȱdivided ȱinto ȱaȱ northern ȱ and ȱ southern ȱ sub ȱ dialect ȱ (Kroeber ȱ 1925:546). ȱ More ȱ current ȱ research ȱ argues ȱ that ȱ this ȱ “Playano” ȱdia lect ȱmay ȱhave ȱbeen ȱaȱSalinan ȱdialect, ȱbut, ȱit ȱmay ȱhave ȱbeen ȱaȱChumash ȱlanguage ȱ or ȱaȱcompletely ȱdifferent ȱlanguage ȱisolate ȱ(Milliken ȱ2004:167). ȱThe ȱSalinan ȱwere ȱbordered ȱto ȱthe ȱ north ȱby ȱthe ȱEsselen ȱand ȱOhlone, ȱto ȱthe ȱeast ȱby ȱthe ȱSouthern ȱValley ȱYokuts ȱand ȱto ȱthe ȱsouth ȱby ȱ the ȱ Chumash. ȱ The ȱ Esselen, ȱ Salinan ȱ and ȱ Chumash ȱ languages ȱ are ȱ part ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Hokan ȱ language ȱ family ȱ(Kroeber ȱ1925:546). ȱȱ ȱ At ȱ the ȱ time ȱ of ȱ European ȱ contact, ȱ it ȱ is ȱ speculated ȱ that ȱ 4,200 ȱ Salinan ȱ people ȱ lived ȱ in ȱ numerous ȱindependent ȱpolitical ȱgroups ȱacross ȱMonterey, ȱSan ȱBenito, ȱSan ȱLuis ȱObispo, ȱKings, ȱ Kern ȱand ȱFresno ȱcounties. ȱDuring ȱthe ȱethnographic ȱperiod, ȱabout ȱ600 ȱSalinan ȱwere ȱliving ȱin ȱor ȱ adjacent ȱto ȱth eȱsouthern ȱportion ȱof ȱthe ȱMonterey ȱRanger ȱDistrict ȱ(M illiken ȱ2004:161). ȱThe ȱmulti Ȭ village ȱ districts ȱ in ȱ this ȱ region ȱ included ȱ Quiguil, ȱ Lamaca ȱ and ȱ Lima. ȱ From ȱ 1773 ȱ to ȱ 1806, ȱ the ȱ Salinan ȱ living ȱ in ȱ these ȱ villages, ȱ were ȱ moved ȱ to ȱ Mission ȱ San ȱ Antonio ȱ (Milliken ȱ 2004:161). ȱ Another ȱ100 ȱSalinan, ȱof ȱthe ȱPel ȱband, ȱthat ȱmay ȱhave ȱbeen ȱusing ȱthe ȱnortheastern ȱportion ȱof ȱthe ȱ San ȱLucia ȱRanger ȱDistrict, ȱmoved ȱto ȱMission ȱSan ȱMiguel ȱfrom ȱ1798 ȱto ȱ1804 ȱ(Milliken ȱ2004:161). ȱȱ ȱ As ȱwith ȱmost ȱcontact Ȭperiod ȱgroups ȱin ȱcentral ȱand ȱsouthern ȱCalifornia, ȱthe ȱethnographic ȱ Salinan ȱheld ȱaȱgender Ȭbased ȱhunting ȱand ȱgathering ȱsocio Ȭpolitical ȱeconomy. ȱWhile ȱthere ȱwere ȱ community ȱprojects ȱthat ȱmen, ȱwomen ȱand ȱchildren ȱall ȱtook ȱpart ȱin, ȱmen ȱand ȱwomen ȱgenerally ȱ had ȱ different ȱ roles ȱ within ȱ society. ȱ Women ȱ were ȱ responsible ȱ for ȱ gathering ȱ foods, ȱ preparing ȱ foods ȱ and ȱ manufacturing ȱ baskets ȱ (Milliken ȱ 2004:169). ȱ In ȱ terms ȱ of ȱ subsistence, ȱ there ȱ was ȱ an ȱ emphasis ȱplaced ȱon ȱcollecting ȱvegetal ȱfoodstuffs, ȱespecially ȱacorns. ȱAco rns ȱwere ȱgathered ȱthen ȱ stored ȱ in ȱ willow Ȭtwig ȱ granaries ȱ prior ȱ to ȱ process ȱ in ȱ stone ȱ mortars ȱ (Hester ȱ 1978:501). ȱ Other ȱ vegetal ȱfoods ȱincluded ȱberries, ȱmescal, ȱsage ȱseed, ȱwild ȱoats ȱand ȱwild ȱfruits. ȱBasketry ȱwas ȱmade ȱ by ȱboth ȱcoiling ȱand ȱtwining ȱmethods ȱ(Hester ȱ1978:501). ȱCoiled ȱbaskets ȱincluded ȱmush Ȭboilers, ȱ hats, ȱwinnowers, ȱflat ȱtrays ȱan dȱhopper ȱmortars. ȱTwined ȱbaskets ȱinclude ȱlarge ȱand ȱsmall ȱwork ȱ baskets ȱ and ȱ asphaltum Ȭsealed ȱ water ȱ bottles ȱ (Milliken ȱ 2004:171). ȱ Men ȱ hunted, ȱ manufactured ȱ tools ȱand ȱcrafted ȱitems ȱfor ȱceremonial ȱpurposes, ȱsuch ȱas ȱdances ȱ(Milliken ȱ2004:169). ȱThe ȱSalinan ȱ hunted ȱ deer, ȱ rabbits ȱ and ȱ bear. ȱ Meat ȱ was ȱ baked, ȱ dried ȱ or ȱ roasted ȱ in ȱ cooking ȱ baskets ȱ or ȱ earth ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 7ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ovens. ȱFishing ȱwas ȱalso ȱan ȱimportant ȱeconomy ȱfor ȱboth ȱthe ȱcoastal ȱand ȱinterior ȱSalinans ȱ(Hester ȱ 1978:501). ȱ Stone ȱ tools ȱ included ȱ project ȱ points, ȱ scrapers ȱ and ȱ choppers. ȱ Bone ȱ and ȱ shell ȱ tools ȱ include ȱbone ȱawls ȱand ȱwedges ȱas ȱwell ȱas ȱCȬshaped ȱshell ȱfishhooks ȱ(Hester ȱ1978:501). ȱȱ ȱ The ȱ Salinan ȱ political, ȱ settlement ȱ and ȱ land ȱ use ȱ systems ȱ in ȱ the ȱ Monterey ȱ District ȱ vicinity ȱ were ȱ most ȱ likely ȱ orga nized ȱ into ȱ small, ȱ regional, ȱ multi Ȭvillage ȱ tribes ȱ with ȱ formal ȱ political ȱ leaders. ȱ This ȱ is ȱ typical ȱ of ȱ the ȱ “regional ȱ tribelet” ȱ model ȱ where ȱ there ȱ would ȱ have ȱ been ȱ clearly ȱ demarcated ȱ tribelet ȱ region ȱ inclusive ȱ of ȱ many ȱ semi Ȭpermanent ȱ villages ȱ and ȱ temporary ȱ camps ȱ (Milliken ȱ2004:176). ȱThere ȱwould ȱhave ȱbeen ȱone ȱor ȱfew ȱformal ȱheadme n. ȱMovement ȱinto ȱandȱ out ȱ of ȱ villages ȱ within ȱ the ȱ tribelet ȱ region ȱ would ȱ have ȱ been ȱ possible, ȱ but, ȱ moving ȱ between ȱ neighboring ȱ tribelets ȱ would ȱ have ȱ been ȱ restricted ȱ and ȱ limited ȱ to ȱ newly ȱ married ȱ individuals ȱ (Milliken ȱ2004:176). ȱHowever, ȱthey ȱmay ȱhave ȱalso ȱlived ȱin ȱsmall ȱbands ȱwith ȱfluid ȱmembership ȱ (Milliken ȱ2004:175). ȱThis ȱis ȱtypical ȱof ȱthe ȱ“local ȱcommunity/regional ȱcommunity ȱmodel” ȱwhere ȱ Salinan ȱ people ȱ would ȱ have ȱ lived ȱ in ȱ multiple ȱ semi Ȭseden tary ȱ bands ȱ where ȱ leadership ȱ was ȱ provided ȱby ȱextended ȱfamily ȱelders. ȱFamilies ȱwould ȱhave ȱbeen ȱmore ȱable ȱto ȱswitch ȱfrom ȱband ȱ to ȱband ȱand ȱregion ȱto ȱregion ȱ(Milliken ȱ2004:176). ȱBased ȱon ȱinformation ȱgathered ȱfrom ȱmission ȱ records ȱand ȱthe ȱwritings ȱof ȱthe ȱFranciscan ȱfathers, ȱMilliken ȱargues ȱthat ȱthe ȱSalinan ȱpeople ȱof ȱthe ȱ Monterey ȱ District ȱ had ȱ some ȱ variety ȱ of ȱ tribelet ȱ political ȱ organization, ȱ similar ȱ to ȱ the ȱ tribelet ȱ system ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Pomo Ȭspeaking ȱ populations ȱ of ȱ the ȱ northern ȱ San ȱ Francisco ȱ Bay ȱ area, ȱ although ȱ social ȱcontrol ȱand ȱgroup ȱleadership ȱof ȱthe ȱSalinan ȱwere ȱnever ȱdocumented ȱ(Millike nȱ2004:1 78). ȱȱ ȱ The ȱQuiguil ȱtribelet ȱarea ȱmay ȱhave ȱbeen ȱthe ȱclosest ȱto ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱWhile ȱthe ȱ exact ȱ tribelet ȱ territory ȱ has ȱ not ȱ been ȱ precisely ȱ defined, ȱ Milliken ȱ estimates ȱ the ȱ pre Ȭmission ȱ population ȱof ȱQuiguil ȱto ȱhave ȱbeen ȱ180 ȱ–ȱ200 ȱpeople. ȱOf ȱthese, ȱ133 ȱQuiguil ȱwere ȱbaptized ȱandȱ Mission ȱSan ȱAntonio ȱfrom ȱ1779 ȱ–ȱ1786 ȱ(Milliken ȱ2004:196). ȱMilliken ȱsuggests ȱthat ȱthe ȱQuiguil ȱ territory ȱmay ȱhave ȱbeen ȱcentered ȱin ȱthe ȱupper ȱSan ȱAntonio ȱRiver ȱwatershed. ȱIt ȱthen ȱextended ȱ further ȱeast ȱto ȱthe ȱtop ȱof ȱJunipero ȱSerra ȱPeak, ȱsoutheast ȱalong ȱthe ȱeast ȱside ȱof ȱthe ȱPinal ȱCreek ȱ watershed ȱ an dȱ crossed ȱ the ȱ San ȱ Antonio ȱ River ȱ about ȱ two ȱ miles ȱ east ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Monterey ȱ Ranger ȱ District ȱ boundary. ȱ Their ȱ territory ȱ could ȱ have ȱ continued ȱ southwest ȱ to ȱ Chalk ȱ Peak, ȱ that ȱ overlooks ȱ Mill ȱ Creek, ȱ down ȱ to ȱ the ȱ south ȱ side ȱ of ȱ Wild ȱ Cattle ȱ Creek ȱ (Milliken ȱ 2004:188). ȱ Mill ȱ Creek ȱ is ȱ located ȱ just ȱ 2.4 ȱ miles ȱ north ȱ of ȱ the ȱ current ȱ study ȱ area ȱ an dȱ Wild ȱ Cattle ȱ Creek ȱ is ȱ even ȱ closer ȱbeing ȱ1.31 ȱmiles ȱnorth ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱȱ ȱ After ȱ the ȱ secularization ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Missions, ȱ Salinan ȱ land ȱ came ȱ under ȱ ownership ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Mexican ȱelite. ȱIn ȱthe ȱlate ȱnineteenth ȱcentury, ȱmany ȱSalinan ȱfamilies ȱwere ȱable ȱto ȱeither ȱobtain ȱ land ȱ through ȱ homesteads ȱ or ȱ purchase. ȱ Most ȱ Salinan ȱ worked ȱ as ȱ servants ȱ or ȱ as ȱ laborers. ȱ The ȱ Salinan ȱlanguage ȱwas ȱstill ȱspoken ȱin ȱthe ȱearly ȱtwentieth ȱcentury ȱand ȱmany ȱSalinan ȱdescendants ȱ are ȱstill ȱliving ȱin ȱMonterey ȱand ȱSan ȱLuis ȱObispo ȱcounties ȱ(Milliken ȱ2004:161). ȱȱ ȱ +,6725,&$/29(59,(: ȱ Monterey ȱCounty ȱis ȱone ȱof ȱthe ȱoriginal ȱ27 ȱcounties ȱof ȱCalifornia, ȱits ȱname ȱderived ȱfrom ȱthe ȱ Spanish ȱexploration ȱof ȱwhat ȱis ȱnow ȱknown ȱas ȱMonterey ȱBay. ȱIn ȱ1542, ȱJuan ȱRodriguez ȱCabrillo ȱ came ȱ across ȱ what ȱ is ȱ now ȱ known ȱ as ȱ Monterey ȱ Bay ȱ while ȱ navigating ȱ northward ȱ along ȱ the ȱ California ȱ coastline. ȱ Cabrillo ȱ initially ȱ named ȱ the ȱ bay ȱ Bahia ȱ de ȱ los ȱ Piños ȱ (Gudde ȱ 1998:246). ȱ In ȱ AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 8ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1595, ȱSebastian ȱRodriguez ȱCermeño, ȱaȱPortuguese ȱcommander ȱof ȱaȱSpanish ȱgalleon, ȱcrossed ȱthe ȱ bay ȱand ȱnamed ȱit ȱSan ȱPedro, ȱfor ȱSaint ȱPeter ȱthe ȱmartyr ȱ(Gudde ȱ1998:246). ȱHowever, ȱit ȱwas ȱthe ȱ merchant ȱtrader ȱSebastian ȱVizcaíno ȱwho ȱentered ȱthe ȱbay, ȱand ȱafter ȱfailing ȱto ȱrealize ȱit ȱwas ȱthe ȱ same ȱ bay ȱ he ȱ had ȱ crossed ȱ Cermeño, ȱ named ȱ the ȱ bay ȱ “Puerto ȱ de ȱ Monterey” ȱ after ȱ Gaspar ȱ de ȱ Zúñiga ȱ yȱ Acevedo, ȱ the ȱ fifth ȱ Count ȱ de ȱ Monterrey, ȱ who ȱ was ȱ then ȱ the ȱ viceroy ȱ of ȱ New ȱ Spain ȱ (Hoover ȱ et ȱ al. ȱ 1990:213; ȱ Gudde ȱ 1998:246). ȱ Monterey ȱ loosely ȱ translated ȱ into ȱ English ȱ is ȱ “hill ȱ or ȱ forest ȱof ȱthe ȱking” ȱ(Hoover ȱet ȱal. ȱ1990:213). ȱVizcaíno ȱwrote ȱso ȱprolifically ȱabout ȱthe ȱ“Puerto ȱde ȱ Monterey” ȱthat ȱit ȱinspired ȱfurther ȱexplorations. ȱPortolá ȱwas ȱcommissioned ȱin ȱ1769 ȱto ȱre Ȭlocate ȱ the ȱ bay. ȱ During ȱ this ȱ expedition, ȱ Portolá ȱ and ȱ his ȱ men ȱ actually ȱ found ȱ and ȱ explored ȱ the ȱ area ȱ without ȱrealizing ȱthat ȱit ȱwas ȱin ȱfact ȱthe ȱvery ȱbay ȱthat ȱspurred ȱVizcaíno’s ȱwriting ȱ(Hoover ȱet ȱal. ȱ 1990:214). ȱ In ȱ 1770, ȱ Portolá ȱ with ȱ Father ȱ Crespí ȱ set ȱ out ȱ on ȱ foot, ȱ with ȱ Father ȱ Serra ȱ following ȱ by ȱ boat, ȱto ȱonce ȱagain ȱre Ȭlocate ȱthe ȱbay. ȱPortolá ȱand ȱCrespí ȱsucceeded ȱin ȱthis ȱsecond ȱendeavor ȱin ȱ May ȱof ȱ1770 ȱ(Hoover ȱet ȱal. ȱ1990:214). ȱFather ȱSerra ȱarrived ȱin ȱearly ȱJune ȱof ȱ1770 ȱand ȱthe ȱmission ȱ and ȱpresidio, ȱboth ȱnamed ȱSan ȱCarlos ȱde ȱBorro meo ȱwere ȱestablished; ȱand ȱwith ȱthat, ȱSpain ȱtook ȱ possession ȱof ȱthe ȱterritory ȱ(Hoover ȱet ȱal. ȱ1990:215). ȱThe ȱPresidio ȱSan ȱCarlos ȱde ȱBorromeo ȱwas ȱ known ȱas, ȱand ȱcontinues ȱto ȱbe ȱknown ȱas, ȱthe ȱMonterey ȱPresidio ȱ(Gudde ȱ1998:246). ȱThe ȱcity ȱof ȱ Monterey ȱwas ȱthe ȱmilitary ȱand ȱsocial ȱcapital ȱof ȱAlta ȱCalifor nia ȱduring ȱthe ȱSpanish ȱand ȱMexica nȱ periods ȱof ȱCalifornia. ȱIt ȱserved ȱas ȱthe ȱport ȱof ȱentry ȱfor ȱwhaling ȱvessels ȱand ȱAmerican ȱships ȱto ȱ trade ȱwith ȱcolonists. ȱIt ȱwas ȱthis ȱinteraction ȱthat ȱled ȱto ȱthe ȱeventual ȱbreakdown ȱof ȱSpain’s ȱanti Ȭ foreign ȱtrade ȱpolicy ȱ(Hoover ȱet ȱal. ȱ1990:214). ȱȱ ȱ ȱ The ȱ current ȱ study ȱ area ȱ is ȱ located ȱ on ȱ the ȱ USGS ȱ 7.5 Ȭminute ȱ Cape ȱ San ȱ Martin, ȱ California ȱ quadrangle. ȱȱ The ȱstudy ȱarea ȱis ȱwest ȱof ȱthe ȱSanta ȱLucia ȱMountain ȱRange, ȱ32 ȱmiles ȱsouth ȱof ȱBig ȱ Sur, ȱin ȱthe ȱPacific ȱValley ȱStation ȱregion, ȱadjacent ȱto ȱthe ȱsmall ȱcommunity ȱof ȱGorda. ȱThe ȱname ȱ Cape ȱSan ȱMartin ȱis ȱderived ȱfrom ȱSpain’s ȱPortuguese ȱexplore rȱJuan ȱRodri guez ȱCabrillo. ȱIn ȱ1542, ȱ Cabrillo ȱnamed ȱapplied ȱthe ȱname ȱto ȱaȱcape ȱalong ȱthe ȱcoastline ȱof ȱMonterey. ȱHowever, ȱit ȱhas ȱ remained ȱ unclear ȱ as ȱ to ȱ which ȱ cape ȱ along ȱ the ȱ coastline ȱ Cabrillo ȱ was ȱ referring ȱ to ȱ (Gudde ȱ 1998:341). ȱ Similarly, ȱ in ȱ 1542, ȱ Cabrillo ȱ also ȱ termed ȱ the ȱ range ȱ now ȱ kn own ȱ as ȱ the ȱ Santa ȱ Lucia ȱ Range, ȱas ȱthe ȱSierras ȱde ȱSan ȱMartin ȱand ȱcalled ȱthe ȱranges ȱto ȱthe ȱnorth ȱthe ȱSierra ȱNevadas ȱdue ȱto ȱ the ȱpresence ȱof ȱsnow ȱon ȱthe ȱpeaks. ȱIn ȱ1602, ȱhowever, ȱVizcaíno ȱnamed ȱthis ȱsection ȱof ȱthe ȱCoastal ȱ Ranges ȱthe ȱSierra ȱde ȱSanta ȱLucia ȱin ȱhonor ȱof ȱSt. ȱLucy ȱof ȱSyracuse ȱ(Gudde ȱ1998:347) .ȱThe ȱSierra ȱ de ȱ Santa ȱ Lucia ȱ is ȱ repeatedly ȱ mentioned ȱ in ȱ the ȱ diaries ȱ of ȱ the ȱ Portola ȱ (Gudde ȱ 1998:347). ȱ The ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱarea ȱis ȱso ȱnamed ȱdespite ȱthe ȱfact ȱthat ȱthe ȱarea ȱdoes ȱnot ȱrepresent ȱaȱvalley, ȱbut, ȱthe ȱ only ȱsection ȱof ȱflat ȱland ȱin ȱthis ȱregion ȱof ȱthe ȱCalifornia ȱcoastline ȱ(Gudde ȱ1998:27 5). ȱThe ȱmodern ȱ community ȱof ȱGorda ȱtakes ȱits ȱname ȱfrom ȱthe ȱhistoric Ȭera ȱsettlement, ȱmine, ȱand ȱschool ȱlocated ȱ there ȱand ȱis ȱderived ȱfrom ȱthe ȱnearby ȱcape, ȱPunta ȱGorda ȱ(Gudde ȱ1998:149). ȱȱ ȱ The ȱ vicinity ȱ of ȱ Big ȱ Sur ȱ was ȱ relatively ȱ unexplored ȱ by ȱ Euro ȬAmericans ȱ until ȱ the ȱ 1830’s. ȱ Rancho ȱ El ȱ Sur ȱ and ȱ Rancho ȱ San ȱ Jose ȱ yȱ Sur ȱ Chiquito ȱ were ȱ the ȱ only ȱ tw oȱ land ȱ grants ȱ approved ȱ during ȱ the ȱ Rancho ȱ Period ȱ (Maliarik ȱ 1998:3) ȱ were ȱ only ȱ two ȱ land ȱ grants ȱ approved ȱ during ȱ the ȱ Rancho ȱPeriod. ȱThis ȱmay ȱbe ȱdue ȱto ȱthe ȱfact ȱthat ȱthe ȱBig ȱSur ȱarea ȱand ȱthe ȱsouthern ȱMonterey ȱ coastline ȱ is ȱ characterized ȱ by ȱ steep ȱ and ȱ rock yȱ terrain, ȱ notably ȱ not ȱ suitable ȱ for ȱ agriculture, ȱ causing ȱ it ȱ to ȱ remain ȱ open ȱ to ȱ homesteading ȱ after ȱ the ȱ majority ȱ of ȱ California ȱ was ȱ settled ȱ by ȱ Americans ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1998:3). ȱFrom ȱ1860 ȱ–ȱ1890 ȱhowever, ȱaȱcommunity, ȱoccasionally ȱsupplied ȱby ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 9ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ships ȱand ȱconnected ȱwith ȱthe ȱdevelopment ȱof ȱnarrow ȱtrails, ȱbegan ȱto ȱgrow. ȱIndustries, ȱsuch ȱas ȱ lime ȱ processing, ȱ gold ȱ mining ȱ and ȱ harvesting ȱ tan ȱ oak ȱ bark ȱ were ȱ established ȱ during ȱ that ȱ time ȱ period ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1998:3). ȱThe ȱMansfields ȱand ȱthe ȱPlasketts ȱwere ȱtwo ȱof ȱthe ȱfirst ȱfamilies ȱto ȱre Ȭ inhabit ȱthe ȱarea ȱ(Gibson ȱ1993:2). ȱȱ The ȱland ȱfrom ȱthe ȱvicinity ȱof ȱwhat ȱis ȱnow ȱPrewitt ȱCreek ȱto ȱ north ȱof ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱSand ȱDollar ȱarea, ȱwas ȱowned ȱby ȱcattle ȱrunner ȱJohn ȱJunge ȱwho ȱhad ȱacquired ȱ the ȱland ȱin ȱ1919 ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1996a). ȱThe ȱarea ȱsurrounding ȱwhat ȱis ȱnow ȱknown ȱas ȱPlaskett ȱCreek ȱ was ȱacquired ȱby ȱWilliam ȱPlaskett ȱin ȱ1869 ȱthrough ȱaȱland ȱgrant. ȱThe ȱPlaskett ȱfamily ȱestablished ȱ aȱsawmill ȱon ȱPlaskett ȱCreek. ȱRemnants ȱof ȱthe ȱPlaskett ȱhomestead ȱhave ȱbeen ȱobserved ȱaround ȱ Plaskett ȱCampground, ȱadjacent ȱto ȱthe ȱPacific ȱValley ȱUnified ȱSchool ȱDistrict ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1989). ȱȱ ȱ At ȱthe ȱbeginning ȱof ȱthe ȱ20 th ȱCentury, ȱWilliam ȱPlaskett ȱdonated ȱland ȱto ȱbuild ȱaȱschool ȱon. ȱ This ȱ school ȱ is ȱ now ȱ known ȱ as ȱ the ȱ Pacific ȱ Valley ȱ Unified ȱ School ȱ (Maliarik ȱ 1989). ȱ After ȱ Pacific ȱ Valley ȱ became ȱ integrated ȱ into ȱ the ȱ National ȱ Forest, ȱ the ȱ Pacific ȱ Valley ȱ School ȱ established ȱ aȱ Special ȱUse ȱPermit ȱin ȱ1961 ȱwith ȱthe ȱForest ȱService ȱfor ȱthe ȱfive ȱacres ȱit ȱcurrently ȱoccupies. ȱThe ȱ original ȱschoolhouse ȱand ȱgarage ȱassociated ȱwith ȱthe ȱschool, ȱhowever, ȱwere ȱremoved ȱin ȱ1967. ȱ Since ȱthe ȱ1960s ȱthe ȱschool ȱfacilities ȱhave ȱbeen ȱexpanded ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1989). ȱ ȱ From ȱ1922 ȱto ȱ1940 ȱWilliam ȱRandolph ȱHearst ȱowned ȱholdings ȱwithin ȱPacific ȱValley ȱuntil ȱ they ȱ were ȱ sold ȱ to ȱ the ȱ United ȱ States ȱ Army ȱ (Maliarik ȱ 1989). ȱ The ȱ Pacific ȱ Valley ȱ became ȱ part ȱ of ȱ National ȱ Forest ȱ Land ȱ in ȱ aȱ United ȱ State ȱ Army ȱ and ȱ Forest ȱ Service ȱ exchange ȱ in ȱ 1957. ȱ The ȱ Los ȱ Padres ȱ National ȱ Forest ȱ was ȱ established ȱ in ȱ 1936 ȱ through ȱ an ȱ Executive ȱ Order ȱ by ȱ President ȱ Franklin ȱ D. ȱ Roosevelt ȱ to ȱ commemorate ȱ the ȱ Franciscan ȱ padres ȱ who ȱ founded ȱ the ȱ California ȱ missions ȱ(Gudde ȱ1998:217). ȱThe ȱLos ȱPadre ȱNational ȱForest ȱname ȱhas ȱreplaced ȱthe ȱnames ȱof ȱthe ȱ Santa ȱBarbara ȱNational ȱForest ȱand ȱextended ȱto ȱinclude ȱthe ȱSan ȱLuis ȱObispo ȱNational ȱForest ȱin ȱ 1910 ȱand ȱthe ȱMonterey ȱNational ȱForest ȱin ȱ1919 ȱ(Gudde ȱ1998:217). ȱȱ ȱ 678'<0(7+2'6  5(&25'6$1'/,7(5$785(6($5&+$1'$*(1&<&217$&7 ȱ Priorȱto ȱthe ȱfield ȱstudy, ȱaȱrecords ȱsearch ȱwas ȱconducted ȱon ȱ04 ȱJune ȱ2012 ȱby ȱthe ȱauthor ȱat ȱ the ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter ȱ(NWIC) ȱof ȱthe ȱCalifornia ȱHistorical ȱResources ȱInformation ȱ System, ȱ which ȱ is ȱ housed ȱ at ȱ Sonoma ȱ State ȱ University. ȱ The ȱ NWIC, ȱ an ȱ affiliate ȱ of ȱ the ȱ State ȱ of ȱ California ȱOffice ȱof ȱHistoric ȱPreservation, ȱis ȱthe ȱofficial ȱstate ȱrepository ȱof ȱarchaeological ȱand ȱ historical ȱrecords ȱand ȱreports ȱfor ȱaȱ16 Ȭcounty ȱarea ȱthat ȱincludes ȱMonterey ȱCounty. ȱThe ȱrecords ȱ search ȱincluded ȱaȱreview ȱof ȱall ȱsite ȱrecords ȱwithin ȱaȱ1Ȭmile ȱradius ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱare ȱand ȱof ȱthe ȱ studies ȱlocated ȱwithin ȱor ȱadjacent ȱto ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱȱ ȱ The ȱrecords ȱsearch ȱand ȱliterature ȱreview ȱfor ȱthis ȱstudy ȱwere ȱdone ȱ(1) ȱto ȱdetermine ȱwhether ȱ known ȱcultural ȱresources ȱhad ȱbeen ȱrecorded ȱwithin ȱor ȱadjacent ȱto ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea; ȱ(2) ȱto ȱassess ȱ the ȱ likelihood ȱ of ȱ unrecorded ȱ cultural ȱ resources ȱ based ȱ on ȱ archaeological, ȱ ethnographic, ȱ and ȱ historical ȱdocuments ȱand ȱliterature, ȱand ȱon ȱthe ȱenvironmental ȱsetting ȱof ȱnearby ȱsites: ȱand ȱ(3) ȱto ȱ develop ȱaȱco ntext ȱfor ȱthe ȱpreliminary ȱevaluation ȱof ȱidentified ȱresources. ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 10 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Included ȱ in ȱ the ȱ review ȱ were ȱ the ȱ California ȱ Inventory ȱ of ȱ Historical ȱ Resources ȱ (California ȱ Department ȱof ȱParks ȱand ȱRecreation ȱ1976) ȱand ȱthe ȱCalifornia ȱOffice ȱof ȱHistoric ȱPreservation’s ȱ Five ȱ Views: ȱ An ȱ Ethnic ȱ Historic ȱ Site ȱ Survey ȱ for ȱ California ȱ (CA ȬOHP ȱ 1988), ȱ California ȱ Historical ȱ Landmarks ȱ(CA ȬOHP ȱ1990), ȱCalifornia ȱPoints ȱof ȱHistorical ȱInterest ȱ(CA ȬOHP ȱ1992), ȱand ȱthe ȱHistoric ȱ Propertiesȱ Direct ory ȱ Listing ȱ (CA ȬOHP ȱ 2012). ȱ The ȱ Historic ȱ Properties ȱ Directory ȱ includes ȱ the ȱ National ȱRegister ȱof ȱHistoric ȱPlaces ȱ(NRHP) ȱand ȱthe ȱCalifornia ȱRegister ȱof ȱHistorical ȱResources ȱ (CRHR), ȱ and ȱ the ȱ most ȱ recent ȱ listings ȱ (through ȱ 9ȱ August ȱ 2011) ȱ of ȱ the ȱ California ȱ Historical ȱ Landmarks ȱand ȱCalifornia ȱPoints ȱof ȱHistorical ȱInterest. ȱ ȱ Within ȱaȱ1Ȭmile ȱradi us, ȱtwo ȱsites ȱ(CA ȬMNT Ȭ1944 ȱand ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1171) ȱare ȱrecorded ȱto ȱthe ȱ north ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱand ȱtwo ȱsites ȱare ȱlocated ȱto ȱthe ȱsouth ȱ(CA ȬMNT Ȭ421 ȱand ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ419). ȱ These ȱfour ȱsites ȱare ȱlocated ȱon ȱcoastal ȱterraces ȱnear ȱor ȱadjacent ȱto ȱthe ȱste ep ȱbluff ȱline. ȱTo ȱthe ȱeast ȱ of ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea, ȱnine ȱsites ȱ(CA ȬMNT Ȭ775H, ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ301, ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1586, ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ288, ȱCA Ȭ MNT Ȭ715, ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ424, ȱCA ȬMNT ȬCA ȬMNT Ȭ423, ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ422, ȱand ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1026) ȱhave ȱbeen ȱ recorded. ȱTo ȱthe ȱsoutheast ȱof ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1586, ȱan ȱunrecorded ȱshellmound ȱis ȱnoted ȱon ȱthe ȱmaps ȱ at ȱ the ȱ NWIC. ȱ These ȱ sites, ȱ with ȱ the ȱ exception ȱ of ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1586, ȱ are ȱ located ȱ within ȱ an ȱ environment ȱthat ȱcan ȱbe ȱcharacterized ȱas ȱrelatively ȱflat ȱareas ȱwithin ȱthe ȱfoothills ȱof ȱthe ȱSanta ȱ Lucia ȱ Range ȱ and ȱ are ȱ in ȱ close ȱ proximity ȱ to ȱ an ȱ intermittent ȱ water ȱ source. ȱ CA ȬMN TȬ1586 ȱ is ȱ located ȱon ȱtop ȱof ȱthe ȱwestern ȱend ȱof ȱaȱwest ȱto ȱeast ȱtrending ȱridgeline ȱthat ȱseparates ȱthe ȱsouth ȱ fork ȱof ȱPrewitt ȱCreek ȱfrom ȱPlaskett ȱCreek. ȱȱ ȱ The ȱ records ȱ search ȱ indicated ȱ 24 ȱ archaeological ȱ resources ȱ have ȱ been ȱ recorded ȱ within ȱ the ȱ study ȱ area ȱ and ȱ are ȱ listed ȱ in ȱ the ȱ table ȱ below ȱ and ȱ are ȱ ordered ȱ as ȱ theyȱ are ȱ located ȱ along ȱ the ȱ coastline ȱfromȱnorth ȱto ȱsouth ȱ(see ȱFigure ȱ2). ȱAȱshort ȱdescription ȱof ȱeach ȱsite ȱis ȱalso ȱincluded. ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 11 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Trinomial ȱȱ Primary ȱ Site ȱDescription ȱ Other ȱDesignation ȱ This ȱsite ȱwas ȱrecord ȱin ȱ1998 ȱand ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱdense ȱshell ȱmidden ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1943 ȱȱ that ȱincluded ȱfire ȱcracked ȱrock ȱand ȱchert ȱflakes ȱ(Mikkelsen ȱ1998a). ȱThe ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ002164 ȱȱ record ȱalso ȱindicates ȱthat ȱthe ȱsite ȱis ȱcovered ȱin ȱdense ȱvegetation ȱand ȱ located ȱon ȱan ȱeroding ȱremnant ȱknoll ȱthat ȱis ȱcut ȱby ȱaȱcreek ȱan dȱaȱ SM Ȭ408 ȱ walking ȱtrail ȱ(Mikkelsen ȱ1998a). ȱȱ This ȱresource ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱby ȱBennyhoff ȱand ȱBennyhoff ȱ (1954). ȱThe ȱsite ȱis ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱdark ȱshell ȱmound ȱthat ȱwas ȱimpacted ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ300 ȱȱȱ by ȱthe ȱconstruction ȱof ȱHighway ȱ1ȱand ȱaȱdirt ȱroad. ȱDuring ȱthe ȱ construction ȱof ȱHighway ȱ1, ȱsix ȱburials ȱwere ȱexposed ȱ(Bennyhoff ȱand ȱ N/A ȱȱ Bennyhoff ȱ1954). ȱThe ȱsiteȱrecord ȱwas ȱupdated ȱin ȱ1973. ȱThe ȱupdate ȱ LPm Ȭ41 ȱ describes ȱthe ȱsite ȱsimilarly, ȱaȱshell ȱmound ȱimpacted ȱby ȱHighway ȱ1. ȱIn ȱ addition, ȱthe ȱupdate ȱnoted ȱfire ȱcracked ȱrock, ȱhaliotis ȱbead ȱblanks, ȱaȱ chert ȱflake, ȱaȱpestle ȱand ȱfire ȱcracked ȱrock ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1973). ȱȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱthat ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱby ȱBaldwin ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ602 ȱȱ (1971a). ȱȱ The ȱoriginal ȱsite ȱrecord ȱdescribes ȱit ȱas ȱaȱdense ȱshell ȱmidden ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000684 ȱȱ and ȱsparse ȱlithic ȱscatter ȱadjacent ȱto ȱaȱbedrock ȱmortar ȱstation ȱ containing ȱseven ȱmortar ȱcups. ȱȱ The ȱsite ȱrecord ȱupdate ȱrecorded ȱsimilar ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ09 ȱ findings ȱto ȱth eȱoriginal ȱrecord ȱ(Broganȱand ȱLopez ȱ1999a). ȱ This ȱresource ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1972 ȱand ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱsmall ȱ site ȱcomprised ȱof ȱaȱlow ȱdensity ȱof ȱshell ȱand ȱaȱsparse ȱlithic ȱdeposit, ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ601 ȱȱ including ȱchert ȱflakes, ȱpitted ȱstone ȱand ȱaȱpossible ȱchopper ȱ(Baldwin ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000683 ȱȱ 1972). ȱThe ȱ1999 ȱupdate ȱfor ȱthis ȱsite ȱobs erved ȱaȱsimilar ȱlow ȱdensity ȱof ȱ shell ȱand ȱlithics ȱ(Brogan ȱand ȱLopez ȱ1999b). ȱThe ȱsite ȱupdate ȱdescribed ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ10 ȱ the ȱsite ȱas ȱaȱsmall ȱshell ȱmidden ȱwith ȱaȱsmall ȱnumber ȱof ȱMonterey ȱand ȱ LPm Ȭ2ȱ Franciscan ȱchert ȱflakes ȱdispersed ȱacross ȱthe ȱmidden ȱ(Brogan ȱand ȱ Lopez ȱ1999b). ȱȱȱ This ȱsite ȱwas ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1999 ȱand ȱdescribed ȱas ȱcontaining ȱmidden ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ2042 ȱȱ soil ȱwith ȱaȱlight ȱdensity ȱof ȱshell ȱand ȱaȱsparse ȱMonterey ȱand ȱFranciscan ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ002357 ȱȱ chert ȱdeposit. ȱThe ȱrecord ȱalso ȱnotes ȱthat ȱthe ȱsite ȱis ȱlocated ȱon ȱand ȱ covers ȱaȱpoint ȱof ȱland ȱextending ȱinto ȱthe ȱocean ȱ(L opez ȱand ȱBrogan ȱ FS#: ȱ05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ532 ȱȱȱ 1999a). ȱȱ This ȱsite ȱwas ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1999 ȱand ȱdescribed ȱas ȱthe ȱremains ȱof ȱaȱlarger ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ2041 ȱȱ site ȱarea ȱdamaged ȱby ȱwinter ȱstorms ȱin ȱ1998. ȱCultural ȱconstituents ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ002356 ȱ include ȱshell ȱand ȱfaunal ȱremains. ȱThe ȱsite ȱrecord ȱindicates ȱthe ȱnorth ȱ end ȱof ȱthe ȱsite ȱhas ȱbeen ȱsloughed ȱaway ȱdue ȱto ȱsubsurface ȱwater ȱflowȱ AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 12 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ533 ȱȱ (Lopez ȱand ȱBrogan ȱ1999b). ȱȱ This ȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱby ȱBrandoff ȱ(1979a). ȱ It ȱwas ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱshell ȱmidden ȱwith ȱgroundstone ȱfragments ȱand ȱ chipped ȱstone. ȱThe ȱ1999 ȱsite ȱupdate ȱdescribed ȱthe ȱsite ȱas ȱaȱlarge ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1053 ȱȱ midden ȱwith ȱfragments ȱof ȱshell ȱand ȱlithic ȱmaterials ȱ(Brogan ȱand ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ001109 ȱ Lopez ȱ199 9c). ȱThe ȱlithic ȱmaterial ȱin ȱtheȱupdate ȱalso ȱincluded ȱthree ȱ pestles, ȱone ȱwhich ȱwas ȱbroken, ȱlithic ȱdebitage ȱand ȱaȱbanded ȱchert ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ322 ȱȱȱ biface ȱfragment ȱ(Brogan ȱand ȱLopez ȱ1999c). ȱThe ȱupdate ȱalso ȱrecorded ȱ two ȱbedrock ȱmilling ȱstations, ȱone ȱwith ȱtwo ȱmortar ȱcups ȱand ȱthe ȱother ȱ with ȱone ȱmortar ȱcup ȱ(Brogan ȱand ȱLopez ȱ1999c). ȱȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱthat ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱby ȱBaldwin ȱ (1971b). ȱȱ The ȱoriginal ȱsite ȱrecord ȱdescribes ȱthe ȱsite ȱas ȱaȱshell ȱmidden ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ466 ȱ deposit ȱand ȱaȱlithic ȱdeposit. ȱȱ The ȱlithic ȱdeposit ȱincludes ȱaȱchert ȱproject ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000566 ȱȱ point, ȱchert ȱflakes ȱand ȱspire Ȭlopped ȱolivella. ȱThe ȱpossibility ȱof ȱ destruction ȱof ȱthis ȱsite ȱby ȱwave ȱaction ȱ(erosion) ȱis ȱalso ȱnoted ȱin ȱthe ȱ LPm Ȭ3ȱ original ȱreco rd ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971b). ȱLooting ȱwas ȱalso ȱimpacted ȱthis ȱsite, ȱ and ȱwas ȱnoted ȱin ȱthe ȱsite ȱrecord ȱupdate ȱby ȱMaliarik ȱ(1994a). ȱȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1025 ȱ This ȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱwas ȱrecord ȱin ȱ1980 ȱby ȱWhitlaw ȱand ȱHamp ȱ (1980). ȱThe ȱrecord ȱdescribes ȱthe ȱsite ȱas ȱaȱshell ȱmidden ȱdeposit ȱwith ȱaȱ N/A ȱȱ few ȱchert ȱflakes ȱ(Whitlaw ȱand ȱHamp ȱ1980). ȱȱ Field ȱNo. ȱ678 ȱ This ȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱwas ȱrecorded ȱin ȱby ȱBreschini ȱ(1973). ȱIt ȱwas ȱ described ȱas ȱaȱthin ȱshell ȱand ȱlithic ȱscatter. ȱIt ȱalso ȱnotes ȱthat ȱseveral ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ600 ȱȱ points ȱhave ȱbeen ȱfound ȱat ȱthis ȱsite ȱ(Breschini ȱ1973). ȱThe ȱsite ȱrecord ȱ was ȱupdated ȱby ȱMaliarik ȱ(1994b). ȱThe ȱsite ȱrecord ȱupdate ȱis ȱsimilar ȱto ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000682 ȱ the ȱoriginal ȱas ȱit ȱnotes ȱaȱshell ȱmidden ȱwith ȱaȱlight ȱlithic ȱscatter ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ129 ȱ (Maliarik ȱ1994b). ȱThe ȱupdate ȱalso ȱdescribes ȱthat ȱthis ȱsite ȱhas ȱbeen ȱ impacted ȱby ȱartifact ȱcollection. ȱOne ȱcollector ȱactually ȱturned ȱin ȱtheir ȱ collection ȱfrom ȱthis ȱsite ȱto ȱthe ȱForest ȱService ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1994b). ȱȱ

CA ȬMNT Ȭ577 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱconsisting ȱof ȱaȱsparse ȱshell ȱmidden ȱ deposit ȱalong ȱsouth ȱbank ȱof ȱPrewitt ȱCreek. ȱAȱsingle ȱauger ȱsample ȱof ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000659 ȱ site ȱwas ȱtaken ȱin ȱ1974 ȱrevealing ȱaȱdepth ȱof ȱ0.50m ȱ(Gibson ȱ1973; ȱHorne ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ131 ȱ 1974). ȱȱ

CA ȬMNT Ȭ578 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1974 ȱ(Home ȱ1974). ȱ The ȱsite ȱis ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱsmall ȱshell ȱmidden ȱdeposit ȱsituated ȱon ȱaȱ N/A ȱȱ small ȱterrace ȱon ȱthe ȱsouth ȱbank ȱof ȱPrewittȱCreek. ȱAn ȱauger ȱsample ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ133 ȱ taken ȱfromȱthe ȱsite ȱrevealedȱaȱdepth ȱof ȱ0.50 ȱmȱ(Home ȱ197 4). ȱȱ

CA ȬMNT Ȭ467 ȱȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource, ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1971 ȱ(Baldwin ȱ 1971c). ȱȱ The ȱoriginal ȱsite ȱrecord ȱdescribes ȱthe ȱsite ȱas ȱaȱlarge ȱarea ȱ N/A ȱȱ containing ȱaȱsparse ȱshell ȱdeposit, ȱaȱlight ȱlithic ȱconcentration ȱincluding ȱ AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 13 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ LPm Ȭ4ȱ three ȱ“pieces ȱof ȱobsidian,” ȱone ȱof ȱwhich ȱwas ȱaȱprojectile ȱpoint ȱthat ȱhad ȱ been ȱreworked ȱas ȱaȱscraper, ȱchert ȱflakes, ȱtools, ȱprojectile ȱpoints ȱand ȱ knives, ȱspire Ȭlopped ȱolivella ȱand ȱaȱbedrock ȱmilling ȱfeature ȱwith ȱat ȱ least ȱsix ȱmortar ȱcups ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971c). ȱȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ692 ȱȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource, ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1979 ȱand ȱupdated ȱ in ȱ1979 ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1976; ȱBrandoff ȱ1979b). ȱȱ Both ȱthe ȱoriginal ȱsite ȱrecord ȱ N/A ȱ and ȱthe ȱupdate ȱdescribe ȱthe ȱsite ȱas ȱcontaining ȱshell ȱand ȱgroundstone ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ332 ȱȱ fragments ȱ(handstones ȱand ȱmillingslabs), ȱaȱbifacial ȱchert ȱfragment, ȱ LPm Ȭ63 ȱ chert ȱflakes ȱand ȱfire ȱcracked ȱrock ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1976; ȱBrandoff ȱ1979b). ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1303 ȱȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱthat ȱwas ȱrecorded ȱby ȱBrandoff ȱ(1979c). ȱȱ It ȱ is ȱdescribed ȱas ȱmidden ȱwith ȱsparse ȱand ȱfragmented ȱshell ȱand ȱaȱsparse ȱ N/A ȱȱ stone ȱscatter ȱon ȱaȱsmall ȱrocky ȱknoll ȱ(Brandoff ȱ1979c). ȱȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ333 ȱ

CA ȬMNT Ȭ1304 ȱ This ȱresource ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1979 ȱand ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱ small, ȱlow ȱdensity ȱsite ȱcontaining ȱshellfish ȱfragments ȱand ȱperiodic ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ001340 ȱ instances ȱof ȱchipped ȱstone ȱfrom ȱrodent ȱtailings ȱ(Brandoff ȱ1979d). ȱȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ334 ȱ

Originally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1971, ȱthe ȱsite ȱis ȱdescribed ȱas ȱmidden ȱsoil ȱwith ȱ sparse ȱand ȱfragmentary ȱshell ȱbut ȱaȱdense ȱ(for ȱthis ȱvicinity) ȱlithic ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ468 ȱȱ scatter ȱincluding ȱchert ȱflakes, ȱ3ȱprojectile ȱpoint ȱand ȱaȱbroken ȱpoint ȱor ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000558 ȱ bifacially ȱworked ȱknife. ȱThe ȱoriginal ȱrecord ȱnotes ȱaȱbedrock ȱmilling ȱ station ȱwith ȱaȱsingle, ȱshallow ȱmill ing ȱsurface ȱwas ȱalso ȱnoted ȱ(Baldwin ȱ FS#: ȱ05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ13 ȱȱ 1971d). ȱThe ȱ1996 ȱupdate ȱdescribes ȱit ȱas ȱaȱsmall ȱshell ȱmidden ȱsite ȱ ȱLPm Ȭ5ȱ southeast ȱof ȱaȱrock ȱoutcrop ȱand ȱdoes ȱnot ȱinclude ȱaȱbedrock ȱmortar ȱ station. ȱIt ȱdoes ȱnote ȱcattle ȱgrazing ȱas ȱan ȱimpact ȱto ȱthe ȱsite ȱ(Maliarik ȱ 1996b). ȱȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ469 ȱ This ȱsite ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1971 ȱand ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱsmall ȱshell ȱ midden ȱsite ȱwith ȱaȱsparse, ȱchert ȱlithic ȱscatter ȱbehind ȱaȱprominent ȱrock ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000559 ȱȱ outcrop ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971e). ȱThe ȱsite ȱrecord ȱwas ȱupdated ȱin ȱ1996 ȱand ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ14 ȱ describes ȱthe ȱsite ȱsimilarly ȱ,ȱnoting ȱrodents ȱand ȱcattle ȱgrazing ȱas ȱ LPm Ȭ6ȱ impacts ȱto ȱth eȱsite ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1996c). ȱȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱthat ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1971 ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ471 ȱ (Baldwin ȱ1971f). ȱȱ It ȱis ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱdense ȱshell ȱmidden ȱwith ȱan ȱ associated ȱlithic ȱdeposit, ȱpossible ȱfish ȱhook ȱfragments, ȱpossible ȱ N/A ȱ groundstone ȱand ȱaȱbedrock ȱmilling ȱstation ȱwith ȱfor ȱmortar ȱcups ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ15 ȱ (Baldwin ȱ1971f). ȱThe ȱSite ȱrecord ȱind icates ȱthat ȱtwo ȱburials ȱwere ȱ reported ȱin ȱthe ȱnearby ȱPlaskett ȱCampground ȱand ȱwere ȱexposed ȱand ȱ LPm Ȭ7ȱ recovered. ȱIt ȱis ȱunclear ȱwhether ȱthese ȱburials ȱare ȱassociated ȱwith ȱCA Ȭ MNT Ȭ471 ȱor ȱare ȱmentioned ȱdue ȱto ȱtheir ȱproximity ȱto ȱthis ȱsite ȱ(Baldwin ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 14 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1971f). ȱThe ȱsite ȱhas ȱbeen ȱimpacted ȱby ȱthe ȱconstruction ȱof ȱHighway ȱ1, ȱ the ȱnearby ȱcampground ȱand ȱlooting. ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ472 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱconsisting ȱof ȱaȱmoderately ȱdense ȱshell ȱ midden ȱwith ȱaȱsparse ȱlithic ȱscatter. ȱWhile ȱsparse, ȱthe ȱlithic ȱscatter ȱ N/A ȱ included ȱfour ȱproject ȱpoints ȱand ȱtwo ȱpoint ȱfragments ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971g ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ16 ȱ and ȱMaliarik ȱ1992b). ȱImpacts ȱto ȱsite ȱinclude ȱcattle ȱgrazing. ȱ ȱLPm Ȭ8ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ945 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱMiddle ȱPeriod ȱresidential ȱsite ȱcomprised ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden ȱand ȱ four ȱloci, ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ2005 ȱ(Breschini ȱand ȱHaversat ȱ2005). ȱȱ N/A ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ317 ȱ This ȱsite ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1951 ȱand ȱdescribed ȱas ȱan ȱ occupation ȱarea ȱwith ȱblack ȱmidden, ȱshell, ȱand ȱone ȱchert ȱblade ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ283 ȱ (Meighan1951). ȱAȱsite ȱrecord ȱupdate ȱwas ȱdone ȱin ȱ1971 ȱ(Baldwin ȱ 1971h). ȱIt ȱnotes ȱscattered ȱshell ȱand ȱlithics ȱincluding ȱchert ȱflakes, ȱaȱ N/A ȱ possible ȱpestle ȱand ȱnon Ȭchert ȱflakes ȱand ȱprobably ȱtools. ȱThe ȱsite ȱ LPm Ȭ9ȱ record ȱalso ȱnotes ȱthe ȱsite ȱhas ȱbeen ȱimpacted ȱby ȱlooting ȱand ȱthat ȱthe ȱ site ȱboundary ȱincluded ȱdensely ȱovergrown ȱvegetation ȱ(Baldwin ȱ 1971h). ȱȱ This ȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱby ȱBrandoff ȱ(1977). ȱIt ȱ was ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱshell ȱmidden ȱon ȱaȱcoastal ȱterrace ȱwith ȱflaked ȱtools ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ716 ȱ and ȱfaunal ȱfragments. ȱIn ȱaddition, ȱless ȱthan ȱ5ȱyellow Ȭbrown ȱchert ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000793 ȱ tools ȱwere ȱobserved ȱ(Brandoff ȱ1977). ȱThe ȱsite ȱrec ord ȱwas ȱupdated ȱin ȱ 1978 ȱ(Brandoff ȱand ȱBarnett ȱ1978). ȱȱ The ȱupdate ȱis ȱsimilar ȱto ȱthe ȱoriginal ȱ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ223 ȱ site ȱrecord ȱnoting ȱaȱsparse ȱshell ȱmidden ȱand ȱlithic ȱdeposit, ȱcomprised ȱ of ȱaȱtotal ȱof ȱfive ȱchert ȱflakes ȱ(Brandoff ȱand ȱBarnette ȱ1978). ȱȱ This ȱis ȱaȱmulti Ȭcomponent ȱsite ȱthat ȱwas ȱfirst ȱrecorded ȱby ȱBarnette ȱand ȱ Brandoff ȱ(1978), ȱand ȱupdated ȱin ȱ1998 ȱ(Mikkelsen ȱ1998b) ȱand ȱupdated ȱ as ȱrecently ȱas ȱ2004 ȱ(Leach ȬPalm ȱand ȱMikkelsen ȱ2004). ȱThe ȱ1978 ȱrecord ȱ describes ȱthe ȱsite ȱas ȱcontaining ȱprehistoric ȱshell ȱmidden, ȱaȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ946/H ȱ concentration ȱof ȱlithics, ȱincluding ȱnumerous ȱchertȱtools, ȱretouched ȱ flakes, ȱchert ȱdebitage ȱand ȱcores, ȱand ȱtwo ȱprobable ȱabalone ȱpendants. ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ001003 ȱ The ȱhistoric Ȭera ȱcomponent ȱof ȱthe ȱsite ȱincluded ȱaȱportion ȱof ȱan ȱ80 ȱft. Ȭ FS#: ȱȱ 05 Ȭ07 Ȭ51 Ȭ318 ȱ long ȱstone ȱwall ȱfoundation ȱacross ȱthe ȱnorthern ȱhalf ȱof ȱthe ȱsite ȱand ȱ glass ȱand ȱceramic ȱfragments ȱ(Barnette ȱand ȱBrandoff ȱ1978). ȱThe ȱsite ȱ SM Ȭ404 ȱ record ȱalso ȱincludes ȱan ȱoral ȱcommunication ȱsource ȱthat ȱnotes ȱthe ȱstone ȱ wall ȱmay ȱhave ȱbeen ȱpart ȱof ȱthe ȱPlaskett ȱfamily ȱhomestead ȱ(Barnette ȱ and ȱBrandoff ȱ1978). ȱThe ȱ1998 ȱsite ȱrecord ȱupdate ȱindicates ȱthat ȱdense ȱ vegetation ȱcovered ȱthe ȱvicinity ȱof ȱthe ȱsite. ȱAbalone ȱfragments ȱand ȱaȱ sparse ȱchert ȱflake ȱdeposit ȱwere ȱobserved ȱalong ȱwith ȱceramic ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 15 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ fragments. ȱThe ȱrock ȱwall ȱwas ȱnot ȱlocated ȱ(Mikkelsen ȱ1998b). ȱThe ȱmost ȱ recent ȱMarch ȱ2004 ȱupdate ȱrelays ȱthat ȱthat ȱthe ȱsite ȱwas ȱcrossed ȱin ȱorder ȱ to ȱget ȱto ȱthe ȱarea ȱof ȱpotential ȱeffects ȱ(APE) ȱfor ȱthe ȱBig ȱSur ȱCulvert ȱ Replacement ȱProject ȱ(Leach ȬPalm ȱand ȱMikkelsen ȱ2004). ȱThe ȱupdate ȱ indicates ȱthat ȱthe ȱsite ȱwas ȱobserved ȱto ȱbe ȱthe ȱsam eȱas ȱit ȱwas ȱin ȱ1998 ȱ with ȱno ȱadditional ȱdisturbances ȱ(Leach ȬPalm ȱand ȱMikkelsen ȱ2004). ȱȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 16 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Aȱtotal ȱof ȱnine ȱstudies ȱhave ȱbeen ȱdone ȱwithin ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱThese ȱstudies ȱfall ȱinto ȱthree ȱ categories: ȱ1) ȱthose ȱthat ȱwere ȱdone ȱin Ȭhouse ȱby ȱthe ȱForest ȱService ȱ(S Ȭ3337 ȱ[E Ȭ40], ȱȬ 14832, ȱȬ 18471, ȱ Ȭ21621, ȱȬ 22462, ȱȬ 22495) ȱ2) ȱthose ȱdone ȱunder ȱcontract ȱfor ȱthe ȱForest ȱService ȱ(S Ȭ8276 ȱ[E Ȭ33], ȱȬ 31080) ȱ and ȱ3) ȱthos eȱdone ȱat ȱthe ȱrequest ȱof ȱanother ȱlead ȱagency ȱ(S Ȭ3662 ȱ[E Ȭ570]). ȱ Except ȱfor ȱSȬ3337 ȱ[E Ȭ40], ȱthe ȱstudies ȱdone ȱin Ȭhouse ȱby ȱthe ȱforest ȱservice ȱwere ȱfor ȱproposed ȱ undertakings ȱwithin ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱSȬ14832 ȱwas ȱdone ȱfor ȱproposed ȱimprovements ȱat ȱthe ȱSand ȱ Dollar ȱPicnic ȱArea ȱthat ȱincluded ȱth eȱinstallation ȱof ȱaȱhandicap ȱaccess ȱturnstile ȱand ȱaȱhardened ȱ path ȱ and ȱ water ȱ system ȱ improvements ȱ (Maliarik ȱ 1989). ȱ The ȱ proposed ȱ improvements ȱ required ȱ ground ȱ disturbing ȱ activities; ȱ aȱ surface ȱ survey ȱ and ȱ subsurface ȱ testing ȱ were ȱ conducted ȱ to ȱ determine ȱthe ȱvertical ȱand ȱhorizontal ȱpresence ȱof ȱcultural ȱresources ȱwithin ȱthe ȱarea ȱof ȱpotential ȱ effect ȱ(APE) ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1989). ȱThe ȱstudy ȱidentified ȱtwo ȱprehistoric ȱresources ȱ(CA ȬMNT Ȭ471 ȱand ȱ 472) ȱsouth ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱThe ȱstudy ȱresulted ȱin ȱthe ȱfinding ȱthat ȱthe ȱproposed ȱproject ȱwould ȱ not ȱdisturb ȱthe ȱidentified ȱcultural ȱresources ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1989). ȱHowever, ȱthe ȱstudy ȱdid ȱnote ȱthat ȱ these ȱresources ȱshowed ȱsigns ȱof ȱdist urbance ȱby ȱcattle ȱand ȱindicated ȱthat ȱcontinued ȱuse ȱof ȱthis ȱ area ȱ by ȱ cattle ȱ grazing ȱ would ȱ further ȱ the ȱ erosion ȱ of ȱ these ȱ sites. ȱ The ȱ study ȱ suggested ȱ aȱ cattle ȱ exclosure ȱbe ȱerected ȱto ȱprotect ȱthe ȱcultural ȱand ȱbiological ȱresources ȱof ȱPlaskett ȱCreek ȱ(Maliarik ȱ 1989). ȱȱ Study ȱ18471 ȱwas ȱcompleted ȱfor ȱaȱwater ȱtank ȱreplacement ȱproject ȱat ȱthe ȱSand ȱDollar ȱDa yȱ Use ȱArea ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1996a). ȱThe ȱstudy ȱreported ȱthat ȱsite sȱrecorded ȱin ȱthe ȱarea ȱ(CA ȬMNT Ȭ468 ȱand ȱ 469) ȱwere ȱlocated ȱ100 ȱmeters ȱaway ȱfrom ȱthe ȱAPE ȱand ȱwould ȱnot ȱbe ȱimpacted ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1996a). ȱ SȬ21621 ȱ is ȱ an ȱ archaeological ȱ reconnaissance ȱ report ȱ that ȱ was ȱ completed ȱ as ȱ the ȱ Los ȱ Padres ȱ National ȱ Forest ȱ was ȱ developing ȱ aȱ pest ȱ plant ȱ presentation ȱ and ȱ control ȱ plan ȱ along ȱ the ȱ Big ȱ Sur ȱ coastline ȱ (Maliarik ȱ 1998). ȱ This ȱ study ȱ identified ȱ cultural ȱ resources ȱ within ȱ the ȱ APE ȱ for ȱ this ȱ undertaking. ȱThe ȱcultural ȱresources ȱthat ȱwere ȱidentified ȱand ȱare ȱin ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy ȱarea ȱare: ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ468, ȱȬ 469, ȱȬ 600, ȱȬ 577, ȱȬ 57 8ȱandȱȬ 1304 ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1998). ȱSȬ22462 ȱis ȱanother ȱarchaeological ȱ reconnaissance ȱreport. ȱThis ȱstudy ȱinventories ȱcultural ȱresources; ȱthe ȱproposed ȱundertaking ȱwas ȱ for ȱnew ȱgrazing ȱpermits ȱfor ȱfour ȱallotments, ȱincluding ȱMill ȱCreek, ȱPacific ȱValley, ȱPrewitt ȱand ȱ Plaskett ȱ (Maliarik ȱ 1999). ȱ The ȱ study ȱ identified ȱ all ȱ of ȱ the ȱ 24 ȱ cultural ȱ resources ȱ located ȱ in ȱ the ȱ current ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱTwo ȱof ȱthese ȱarchaeological ȱresources, ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ2041 ȱand ȱ2042, ȱwere ȱnewly ȱ identified ȱand ȱrecorded ȱas ȱaȱresult ȱof ȱSȬ22462. ȱThe ȱstudy ȱalso ȱresulted ȱin ȱupdating ȱrecords ȱfor ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ283, ȱȬ 300, ȱȬ 600, ȱȬ 477, ȱȬ 478, ȱȬ 692 ȱand ȱȬ 1303. ȱFor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ471, ȱȬ 692 ȱand ȱȬ 1303 ȱthe ȱstudy ȱ recommends ȱan ȱexclosure ȱto ȱexclude ȱcattle ȱfrom ȱfurther ȱeroding ȱthe ȱsite ȱand ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ600, ȱ the ȱ study ȱ recommends ȱ eliminating ȱ the ȱ corral ȱ as ȱ cattle ȱ use ȱ has ȱ resulted ȱ in ȱ the ȱ churning ȱ and ȱ exposure ȱof ȱartifacts ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1999). ȱThe ȱstudy ȱalso ȱrecommends ȱannual ȱmonitoring ȱfor ȱall ȱof ȱ the ȱcultural ȱresources ȱidentified ȱwithin ȱthe ȱAPE, ȱwhich ȱencompasses ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱȱ Study ȱ 22495 ȱ was ȱ completed ȱ for ȱ the ȱ proposed ȱ undertaking ȱ described ȱ as ȱ replacing ȱ aȱ livestock ȱfence ȱon ȱthe ȱwest ȱside ȱof ȱHighway ȱ1ȱ(Marmor ȱ1989). ȱAs ȱpart ȱof ȱthis ȱstudy, ȱtransects ȱ were ȱ walked ȱ parallel ȱ to ȱ the ȱ existing ȱ fence ȱ line ȱ and ȱ three ȱ previously ȱ recorded ȱ archaeological ȱ sites ȱwere ȱidentified. ȱThe ȱstudy ȱrecommends ȱthat ȱextreme ȱcaution ȱbe ȱused ȱwhen ȱreplacing ȱth eȱ fenceline ȱ within ȱ the ȱ vicinity ȱ of ȱ the ȱ identified ȱ cultural ȱ resources. ȱ It ȱ also ȱ recommends ȱ that ȱ the ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 17 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ same ȱ postholes ȱ be ȱ used ȱ when ȱ replacing ȱ the ȱ fence ȱ posts ȱ and ȱ that ȱ all ȱ construction ȱ within ȱ the ȱ vicinity ȱof ȱcultural ȱresources ȱbe ȱdone ȱby ȱhand ȱand ȱbe ȱclosely ȱmonitored ȱ(Marmor ȱ1989). ȱȱ Studies ȱ8276 ȱand ȱ3337 ȱ(E Ȭ40) ȱwere ȱwritten ȱregarding ȱthe ȱconstruction ȱof ȱleach ȱfields ȱeast ȱ and ȱwest ȱside ȱof ȱHighway ȱ1, ȱsouth ȱof ȱPrewitt ȱBridge, ȱand ȱthe ȱsites ȱthat ȱwere ȱloca ted ȱwithin ȱthe ȱ vicinity ȱ of ȱ the ȱ APE. ȱ During ȱ the ȱ construction ȱ of ȱ the ȱ leach ȱ fields, ȱ Gibson ȱ carried ȱ out ȱ aȱ surface ȱ survey ȱand ȱemployed ȱsubsurface ȱarchaeological ȱtesting ȱin ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱ(Gibson ȱ1973). ȱGibson ȱ did ȱnot ȱobserve ȱarchaeological ȱmaterials ȱwithin ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱHowever, ȱhe ȱdid ȱlocate ȱaȱsite ȱ (CA ȬMNT Ȭ577) ȱ adjacen tȱ to ȱ the ȱ APE. ȱ Gibson ȱ describes ȱ this ȱ site ȱ as ȱ aȱ small ȱ shell ȱ scatter ȱ to ȱ the ȱ south ȱof ȱPrewitt ȱCreek ȱ(Gibson ȱ1973). ȱIn ȱthe ȱstudy, ȱGibson ȱnotes ȱthat ȱduring ȱthe ȱcreation ȱof ȱthe ȱ leach ȱfields, ȱprecautions ȱshould ȱbe ȱtaken ȱto ȱavoid ȱadversely ȱimpacting ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ577 ȱ(Gibson ȱ 1973). ȱGibson ȱalso ȱdescribes ȱan ȱarea ȱeast ȱof ȱthe ȱsmall ȱtributary ȱthat ȱflows ȱinto ȱPrewitt ȱCreek ȱas ȱ containing ȱmidden ȱand ȱwas ȱdiscovered ȱpartially ȱdue ȱto ȱaȱtrench ȱthat ȱhad ȱbeen ȱplaced ȱwithin ȱ the ȱsite ȱ(Gibson ȱ1973). ȱThe ȱexact ȱlocation ȱof ȱthis ȱmidden ȱis ȱunclear ȱas ȱit ȱis ȱnot ȱindicated ȱon ȱaȱ map ȱwithin ȱthe ȱstudy, ȱnor ȱis ȱthere ȱaȱclear ȱdescription ȱin ȱthe ȱreport ȱexcep tȱfor ȱ“the ȱarea ȱeast ȱof ȱ the ȱsmall ȱtributary ȱthat ȱflows ȱinto ȱPrewitt ȱCreek” ȱ(Gibson ȱ1973). ȱIn ȱthe ȱstudy, ȱGibson ȱstates ȱthat ȱ the ȱarea ȱwest ȱof ȱthe ȱsmall ȱtributary ȱalready ȱcontained ȱseveral ȱhouse ȱtrailers ȱand ȱany ȱmidden ȱ that ȱmay ȱhave ȱbeen ȱthere ȱno ȱlonger ȱexisted ȱ(Gibson ȱ19 73). ȱStudy ȱ3337 ȱ(E Ȭ40) ȱwas ȱdone ȱin ȱ1974 ȱ as ȱaȱfollow ȱup ȱto ȱGibson’s ȱ1973 ȱreport ȱ(Horne ȱ1974). ȱIn ȱthe ȱstudy, ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ577 ȱis ȱre Ȭlocated ȱ and ȱ another ȱ site, ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ578 ȱ was ȱ also ȱ located ȱ and ȱ recorded. ȱ The ȱ study ȱ found ȱ that ȱ the ȱ creation ȱof ȱthe ȱleach ȱfields ȱwould ȱnot ȱimpact ȱeither ȱsite ȱ(Horne ȱ1974). ȱȱ Study ȱ 3662 ȱ (E Ȭ570) ȱ was ȱ carried ȱ out ȱ by ȱ and ȱ prepared ȱ for ȱ the ȱ California ȱ Department ȱ of ȱ Transportation ȱ (Caltrans) ȱ (Smith ȱ 1981). ȱ The ȱ project ȱ area ȱ as ȱ indicated ȱ by ȱ the ȱ study ȱ includes ȱ aȱ portion ȱ of ȱ the ȱ current ȱ study ȱ area. ȱ The ȱ report ȱ indicates ȱ th at ȱ 11 ȱ archaeological ȱ res ources ȱ were ȱ noted ȱwithin ȱ1ȱkilometer ȱof ȱthe ȱAPE, ȱnone ȱwere ȱobserved ȱto ȱbe ȱwithin ȱthe ȱAPE ȱor ȱadjacent ȱto ȱit ȱ (Smith ȱ1981). ȱȱ Study ȱ 31080 ȱ was ȱ carried ȱ out ȱ by ȱ Breschini ȱ and ȱ Haversat ȱ (2005). ȱ This ȱ study ȱ covers ȱ three ȱ specific ȱ sites, ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ307, ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ945 ȱ and ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ385. ȱ Only ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ945 ȱ is ȱ included ȱ within ȱ the ȱ current ȱ study ȱ area. ȱ This ȱ study ȱ was ȱ initiated ȱ by ȱ the ȱ Forest ȱ Service ȱ due ȱ to ȱ specific ȱ threats ȱto ȱthe ȱintegrity ȱof ȱthese ȱsites ȱand ȱbecause ȱ“of ȱtheir ȱpotential ȱeligibility ȱfor ȱinclusion ȱon ȱ the ȱ National ȱ Register ȱ of ȱ Historic ȱ Places ȱ under ȱ 36 ȱ CFR ȱ 60.4”ȱ (Breschini ȱ and ȱ Haversat ȱ 2005:1). ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ945 ȱwas ȱexcavated. ȱȱ ȱ Four ȱ studies ȱ have ȱ been ȱ conducted ȱ adjacent ȱ to ȱ the ȱ study ȱ area. ȱ Studies ȱ 15344 ȱ and ȱ 17549 ȱ were ȱ carried ȱ out ȱ due ȱ to ȱ the ȱ installation ȱ of ȱ aȱ Pacific ȱ Bell ȱ phone ȱ cable ȱ along ȱ Highway ȱ 1. ȱ The ȱ proposed ȱtelephone ȱcorridor ȱwas ȱlocated ȱon ȱthe ȱwest ȱside ȱof ȱHighway ȱ1, ȱthe ȱnorth ȱend ȱof ȱthe ȱ project ȱ area ȱ began ȱat ȱaȱtelephone ȱ po le ȱ just ȱ northȱ of ȱ Plaskett ȱ Creek ȱ and ȱ its ȱ southern ȱ terminus ȱ was ȱlocated ȱat ȱaȱtelephone ȱpole ȱat ȱhighway ȱmarker ȱ13.00 ȱ(Gibson ȱ1993:3). ȱSȬ15344 ȱis ȱthe ȱinitial ȱ study ȱthat ȱincluded ȱan ȱarchaeological ȱsurvey ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱIn ȱthis ȱstudy, ȱGibson ȱidentifies ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ471 ȱas ȱthe ȱonly ȱarchaeological ȱresource ȱwithin ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱ(Gibson ȱ1993:3). ȱGibson ȱ does ȱidentify ȱthree ȱother ȱsites, ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ421, ȱȬ 716, ȱand ȱȬ 946 ȱas ȱadjacent ȱto ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱbut ȱ notes ȱthat ȱthese ȱsites ȱwill ȱnot ȱbe ȱaffected ȱby ȱthe ȱcable ȱinstallation ȱ(Gibson ȱ1993:3).ȱThe ȱreport ȱ state sȱthat ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ471 ȱwould ȱprobably ȱbe ȱaffected ȱbecause ȱapproximately ȱhalf ȱof ȱthe ȱ15 ȱft. ȱtie ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 18 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ in ȱfrom ȱthe ȱedge ȱof ȱthe ȱpavement ȱwestward ȱtoward ȱthe ȱbase ȱof ȱthe ȱtelephone ȱpole ȱwould ȱbe ȱin ȱ cultural ȱ deposit ȱ from ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ471 ȱ (Gibson ȱ 1993:3). ȱ Gibson ȱ recommended ȱ having ȱ an ȱ archaeological ȱmonitor ȱpresent ȱwhen ȱthe ȱtrench ȱis ȱexcavated ȱfor ȱthe ȱinstallation ȱof ȱthe ȱphone ȱ cable ȱ (Gibson ȱ 1993:4). ȱ The ȱ archaeological ȱ monitoring ȱ of ȱ the ȱ excavation ȱ of ȱ the ȱ trench ȱ for ȱ the ȱ cable ȱ installation ȱ is ȱ discussed ȱ in ȱ study ȱ 17549 ȱ (Parker ȱ 1993). ȱ As ȱ part ȱ of ȱ the ȱ archaeological ȱ monitoring, ȱ aȱ pre Ȭtrenching ȱ field ȱ inspection ȱ took ȱ place. ȱ It ȱ was ȱ noted ȱ that ȱ aȱ previous ȱ underground ȱcable ȱproject ȱhad ȱpreviously ȱdisturbed ȱthe ȱsite ȱand ȱit ȱwas ȱdecided ȱthat, ȱif ȱthe ȱnew ȱ cable ȱwere ȱto ȱbe ȱplaced ȱwithin ȱthis ȱexisting ȱtrench, ȱaȱdata ȱrecovery ȱproject ȱwould ȱnot ȱbe ȱneeded ȱ (Parker ȱ 1993:2). ȱ In ȱ addition, ȱ the ȱ portion ȱ of ȱ the ȱtrench ȱ that ȱextended ȱ from ȱ the ȱ shoulder ȱ of ȱ the ȱ road ȱto ȱthe ȱpole ȱwas ȱhand ȱexcavated ȱto ȱnot ȱdisturb ȱintact ȱportions ȱof ȱthe ȱsite ȱ(Parker ȱ1993:2). ȱȱ ȱ There ȱare ȱtwo ȱadditional ȱstudies ȱthat ȱwere ȱadjacent ȱto ȱthe ȱcur rent ȱstudy ȱarea, ȱSȬ3734 ȱ(E Ȭ 646) ȱand ȱSȬ32449. ȱStudy ȱ3734 ȱis ȱan ȱarchaeological ȱsurvey ȱreport ȱfor ȱthe ȱpaving ȱof ȱexisting ȱroad ȱ shoulders ȱof ȱHighway ȱ1ȱfor ȱbicycle ȱlanes ȱ(Smith ȱ1981). ȱThe ȱstudy ȱfound ȱthat ȱwhile ȱtwo ȱsites, ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ471 ȱand ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ424, ȱwere ȱadjacent ȱto ȱthe ȱAPE, ȱthese ȱsites ȱwould ȱnot ȱbe ȱaffected ȱby ȱ the ȱproject ȱas ȱthe ȱsites ȱdo ȱnot ȱextend ȱinto ȱthe ȱAPE ȱand ȱproposed ȱground ȱdisturbance ȱwould ȱbe ȱ within ȱ existing ȱ road ȱ shoulders ȱ (Smith ȱ 1981:7). ȱ Study ȱ 32449 ȱ was ȱ carried ȱ out ȱ for ȱ aȱ culvert ȱ replacement ȱproject ȱalong ȱHighway ȱ1ȱ(Leach ȬPal mȱand ȱMikkelsen ȱ2004). ȱFor ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy, ȱ Highway ȱ1ȱwas ȱused ȱsolely ȱas ȱan ȱarbitrary ȱbuffer ȱfor ȱthe ȱpurposes ȱof ȱthe ȱcoastal ȱsurvey ȱcarried ȱ out ȱby ȱthe ȱCabrillo ȱCollege ȱarchaeology ȱfield ȱschool. ȱSȬ32449 ȱdoes ȱinclude ȱan ȱupdate ȱfor ȱCA Ȭ MNT Ȭ946. ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ946 ȱis ȱnot ȱlocatedȱwithin ȱthe ȱAPE ȱfor ȱSȬ32449, ȱbut, ȱit ȱprovided ȱeasy ȱaccess ȱ to ȱthe ȱAPE, ȱso ȱan ȱupdate ȱwas ȱdone ȱfor ȱthis ȱsite ȱ(Leach ȬPalm ȱand ȱMikkelsen ȱ2004:18). ȱȱȱ While ȱnot ȱwithin ȱor ȱadjacent ȱto ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea, ȱthere ȱare ȱtwo ȱrelevant ȱstudies ȱ(S Ȭ15178 ȱand ȱ SȬ28559) ȱthat ȱhave ȱbeen ȱdone ȱat ȱthe ȱPacific ȱUnified ȱSchool ȱDistrict. ȱThese ȱstudies ȱare ȱrelevant ȱ because ȱthe yȱdiscuss ȱthe ȱpossibility ȱthat ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ424 ȱand ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ471 ȱrepresent ȱone ȱsite ȱthat ȱ became ȱ separate ȱ with ȱ the ȱ creation ȱ of ȱ Highway ȱ 1. ȱ SȬ15178 ȱ was ȱ aȱ result ȱ of ȱ the ȱ proposed ȱ undertaking ȱfor ȱan ȱexpansion ȱof ȱthe ȱPacific ȱUnifiedȱSchool ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1989). ȱThe ȱstudy ȱdiscusses ȱ the ȱpossibility ȱof ȱthe ȱconnection ȱbetween ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ424 ȱand ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ471 ȱbut ȱdetermines ȱthat ȱ both ȱsites ȱwould ȱhave ȱto ȱundergo ȱfurther ȱtesting ȱin ȱorder ȱto ȱascertain ȱwhether ȱor ȱnot ȱthese ȱsites ȱ are ȱ actually ȱ one. ȱ SȬ28559 ȱ included ȱ both ȱ aȱ surface ȱ examination ȱ and ȱ subsurface ȱ testing, ȱ in ȱ the ȱ form ȱ of ȱ auguring, ȱ of ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ424 ȱ for ȱ the ȱ replacement ȱ of ȱ aȱ failed ȱ leach ȱ lineȱ (Breschini ȱ and ȱ Haversat ȱ2004:1). ȱThis ȱstudy ȱcould ȱnot ȱconclusively ȱstate ȱwhether ȱor ȱnot ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ424 ȱand ȱCA Ȭ MNT Ȭ471 ȱwere ȱrelated ȱbut ȱdoes ȱsuggest ȱthat ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ424 ȱmay ȱbe ȱan ȱextension ȱof ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ 471 ȱ(Breschi ni ȱand ȱHaversat ȱ2004:18). ȱȱ ȱ 25*$1,=$7,21&217$&7 ȱ The ȱ United ȱ States ȱ Forest ȱ Service ȱ (USFS) ȱ initiated ȱ and ȱ was ȱ primarily ȱ responsible ȱ for ȱ any ȱ and ȱall ȱtribal ȱconsultation ȱfor ȱthis ȱstudy. ȱȱȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 19 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ),(/'6859(< ȱ Dustin ȱMcKenzie, ȱField ȱDirector ȱfor ȱthe ȱCabrillo ȱCollege ȱArchaeology ȱField ȱSchool, ȱeight ȱ crew ȱ chiefs ȱ and ȱ 22 ȱ students ȱ enrolled ȱ in ȱ the ȱ archaeological ȱ field ȱ school ȱ conducted ȱ aȱ cultural ȱ resources ȱfield ȱstudy ȱfrom ȱthe ȱ25 th ȱthrough ȱthe ȱ29 th ȱof ȱJune ȱ2012. ȱȱ ȱ Priorȱ to ȱ the ȱ fieldwork ȱ aȱ two Ȭfold ȱ field ȱ survey ȱ strategy ȱ was ȱ designed ȱ due ȱ to ȱ the ȱ large ȱ number ȱof ȱarchaeological ȱresources ȱalready ȱknown ȱto ȱbe ȱin ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱAn ȱemphasis ȱwas ȱ placed ȱon ȱrecording ȱand/or ȱupdating ȱhistorical ȱresource ȱinventory ȱforms ȱfor ȱsites ȱcloses ȱto ȱthe ȱ coastal ȱmargin ȱas ȱwell ȱas ȱsites ȱthat ȱwere ȱdetermined ȱto ȱhave ȱaȱhigher ȱsensitivity ȱlevel ȱand/or ȱin ȱ need ȱ of ȱ aȱ record ȱ update ȱ (sites ȱ with ȱ aȱ higher ȱ level ȱ of ȱ priority ȱ are ȱ listed ȱ in ȱ bold ȱ on ȱ the ȱ table ȱ below). ȱThe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱwas ȱsplit ȱinto ȱaȱnorthern ȱand ȱsouthern ȱhalf, ȱusing ȱPrewitt ȱCreek ȱas ȱan ȱ arbitrary ȱ geographic ȱ divider. ȱ Two ȱ survey ȱ tea ms ȱ (a ȱ “recording” ȱ and ȱ “survey” ȱ team) ȱ were ȱ assigned ȱto ȱeach ȱhalf ȱof ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea. ȱCrews ȱwere ȱcomprised ȱof ȱat ȱleast ȱtwo ȱcrew ȱchiefs ȱand ȱ five ȱstudents. ȱȱ ȱ The ȱrecording ȱteam ȱwas ȱresponsible ȱfor ȱupdating ȱhistorical ȱresource ȱinventory ȱforms ȱfor ȱ previously ȱrecorded ȱarchaeological ȱresources ȱthat ȱhad ȱbeen ȱplaced ȱhigh ȱon ȱthe ȱpre Ȭfield ȱsurvey ȱ strategy ȱlist. ȱThe ȱrecordingȱteam ȱwent ȱto ȱthe ȱreported ȱlocation ȱof ȱaȱpreviously ȱrecorded ȱsite ȱand ȱ attempted ȱto ȱre Ȭlocate ȱthe ȱsite. ȱMethods ȱgenerally ȱconsisted ȱof ȱwalking ȱ5Ȭmeter ȱtransects, ȱeither ȱ along ȱ aȱ contour ȱ or ȱ bearing ȱ determined ȱ by ȱ the ȱ crew ȱ chief ȱ within ȱ the ȱ vicinity ȱ of ȱ the ȱ site, ȱ and ȱ visually ȱinspecting ȱthe ȱground ȱsurface ȱfor ȱindicators ȱof ȱthe ȱpreviously ȱrecorded ȱresource. ȱIf ȱthe ȱ site ȱ was ȱ re Ȭlocated, ȱ the ȱ site ȱ boundaries ȱ were ȱ defined ȱ and ȱ historical ȱ resource ȱ inventory ȱ forms ȱ were ȱupdated. ȱȱ ȱ The ȱsurvey ȱteams ȱcarried ȱout ȱintensive ȱpedestrian ȱsurvey ȱfor ȱas ȱmuch ȱof ȱtheir ȱportions ȱof ȱ the ȱstudy ȱarea ȱas ȱpossible. ȱThe ȱsurvey ȱteams’ ȱmethods ȱincluded ȱwalking ȱtransect ȱlines ȱin ȱ5Ȭȱ to ȱ 10 Ȭmeter ȱincrements ȱalong ȱaȱnorth ȱto ȱsouth ȱaxis ȱto ȱaȱbearing ȱof ȱeast ȱor ȱwest; ȱessentially, ȱfrom ȱ the ȱboundary ȱof ȱHighway ȱ1ȱto ȱthe ȱedge ȱof ȱthe ȱcoastal ȱbluffs ȱand ȱback. ȱSurvey ȱcrew ȱmembers ȱ visually ȱinspected ȱthe ȱground ȱsurface, ȱclearing ȱduff ȱfrom ȱthe ȱground ȱsurface ȱas ȱnecessary, ȱfor ȱ prehistoric ȱand ȱhistoric Ȭera ȱarchaeological ȱdeposits. ȱȱ ȱ Overall, ȱthe ȱamount ȱof ȱvegetation, ȱconsisting ȱof ȱdense ȱand ȱoften ȱovergrown ȱcoastal ȱscrub ȱ (e.g. ȱblankets ȱof ȱpoison ȱoak, ȱcoyote ȱbrush ȱand ȱtall ȱinvasive ȱgrasses), ȱleft ȱthe ȱground ȱvisibility ȱ within ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱto ȱbe ȱless ȱthan ȱ5ȱpercent. ȱWhen ȱpossible, ȱpiles ȱ of ȱrodent ȱbackdirt ȱwere ȱ visually ȱinspected ȱto ȱdetermine ȱwhether ȱor ȱnot ȱthese ȱcontained ȱarchaeological ȱsite ȱindicators. ȱ Additionally, ȱwhile ȱneither ȱteam ȱemployed ȱground Ȭdisturbing ȱactivities, ȱpockets ȱof ȱvegetation ȱ were ȱ cleared ȱ away ȱ to ȱ expose ȱ the ȱ ground ȱ surface ȱ to ȱ gain ȱ better ȱ visibility ȱ archaeological ȱ site ȱ indicators ȱ including ȱ anthropogenic ȱ soil ȱ and ȱ historic Ȭera ȱ and ȱ prehistoric ȱ artifacts ȱ and/or ȱ features. ȱȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 20 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 678'<5(68/76$1'5(&200(1'$7,216  ȱ Aȱtotal ȱof ȱ19 ȱsites ȱwere ȱre Ȭlocated ȱfrom ȱ25 ȱJune ȱthrough ȱ29 ȱJune ȱ2012. ȱOne ȱsite, ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ 946/H ȱwas ȱnot ȱre Ȭlocated ȱdue ȱto ȱdense ȱvegetation. ȱFour ȱof ȱthe ȱsites ȱlocated ȱwithin ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱ were ȱ not ȱ visited. ȱ The ȱ table ȱ below ȱ depicts ȱ the ȱ sites ȱ that ȱ were ȱ re Ȭlocated, ȱ not ȱ re Ȭlocated ȱ or ȱ not ȱ visited. ȱ The ȱ finds ȱ are ȱ described ȱ below; ȱ historical ȱ resour ces ȱ inventory ȱ forms ȱ are ȱ presented ȱ as ȱ Appendix ȱA. ȱDue ȱto ȱthe ȱnumber ȱof ȱsites ȱwithin ȱthe ȱstudy ȱarea ȱand ȱthe ȱtime ȱconstraints ȱof ȱthe ȱ field ȱ school, ȱ an ȱ emphasis ȱ was ȱ placed ȱ on ȱ recording ȱ and/or ȱ updating ȱ historical ȱ resource ȱ inventory ȱforms ȱfor ȱsite sȱcloses ȱto ȱth eȱsteep ȱcoastal ȱbluff ȱline. ȱThe ȱtrinomial ȱfor ȱthese ȱsites ȱare ȱ listed ȱin ȱbold ȱin ȱthe ȱtable ȱbelow. ȱThe ȱtrinomials ȱare ȱpresented ȱnorth ȱto ȱsouth, ȱfollowed ȱby ȱtext ȱ descriptions ȱof ȱeach ȱsite ȱrevisited. ȱ ȱ Trinomial ȱ Primary ȱ Status ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1943 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ002164 ȱ Not ȱvisited ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ300 ȱ N/A ȱ Not ȱvisited ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ602 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000684 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ601 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000683 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ2042 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ002357 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ2041 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ002356 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1053 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ001109 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ466 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000566 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1025 ȱ N/A ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ600 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000682 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ577 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000659 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ578 ȱ N/A ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ467 ȱ N/A ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ692 ȱ N/A ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1303 ȱ N/A ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1304 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ001340 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ468 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000558 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ469 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000559 ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ471 ȱ N/A ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 21 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ472 ȱ N/A ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ945 ȱ N/A ȱ Not ȱvisited ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ283 ȱ N/A ȱ Re Ȭlocated ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ716 ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ000793 ȱ Not ȱvisited ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ946/H ȱ PȬ27 Ȭ001003 ȱ Not ȱlocated ȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱ site ȱ is ȱ aȱ prehistoric ȱ resource, ȱ consisting ȱ of ȱ shell ȱ midden ȱ that ȱ contains ȱ aȱ moderately ȱ dense ȱ Franciscan ȱ chert ȱ lithic ȱ concentration ȱ and ȱ aȱ bedrock ȱ milling ȱ feature. ȱ It ȱ was ȱ originally ȱ recorded ȱ on ȱ 18 ȱ October ȱ 1971 ȱ and ȱ then ȱ updated ȱ on ȱ 20 ȱ July ȱ 1999 ȱ (Baldwin ȱ 1971a; ȱ Brogan ȱ and ȱ Lopez ȱ 1999a).The ȱ site ȱ is ȱ located ȱ on ȱ aȱ grassy, ȱ point ȱ of ȱ land ȱ protruding ȱ into ȱ the ȱ ocean, ȱ approximately ȱ200 ȱmȱwest ȱof ȱHighway ȱ1. ȱThe ȱpoint ȱcontains ȱ2ȱprominent ȱoutcrops ȱof ȱsiliceous ȱ outcrops ȱthat ȱappear ȱto ȱbe ȱlow ȱgrade ȱFranciscan ȱchert. ȱThe ȱwestern ȱoutcrop ȱrises ȱapproximately ȱ 40 ȱ –ȱ 50 ȱ mȱ above ȱ the ȱ point ȱ and ȱ forms ȱ aȱ distinct ȱ local ȱ landmark ȱ visible ȱ fromȱ at ȱ least ȱ Plaskettȱ Creek, ȱ2ȱmiles ȱsouth. ȱ ȱ During ȱthe ȱJune ȱ2012 ȱCabrillo ȱCollege ȱvisit, ȱthe ȱmidden ȱdeposit ȱwas ȱnoted ȱto ȱextend ȱ15 ȱmȱ east ȱof ȱthe ȱfirst ȱoutcrop ȱto ȱthe ȱbase ȱof ȱthe ȱwestern ȱoutcrop. ȱMidden ȱwas ȱalso ȱobserved ȱon ȱsmall ȱ terraces ȱ10 ȱmȱup ȱon ȱthe ȱrock ȱface. ȱShellfish ȱspecies ȱincluded ȱCalifornia ȱmussel, ȱabalone, ȱturban ȱ snail, ȱlimpet, ȱand ȱchiton. ȱAȱmoderately ȱdense ȱlithic ȱdeposit ȱwas ȱnoted ȱthroughout ȱthe ȱmidden. ȱ The ȱlithic ȱdeposit ȱconsisted ȱof ȱ30 ȱto ȱ40 ȱFranciscan ȱchert ȱflakes. ȱDuring ȱthis ȱsite ȱvisit, ȱth eȱbedrock ȱ milling ȱfeature ȱwas ȱre Ȭlocated, ȱbut ȱonly ȱsix ȱmortar ȱcups ȱwere ȱrecorded. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱsite ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱFebruary ȱ1972 ȱand ȱthe ȱrecord ȱupdated ȱin ȱ1999 ȱby ȱthe ȱ US ȱ Forest ȱ Service ȱ (Baldwin ȱ 1972, ȱ Brogan ȱ and ȱ Lopez ȱ 1999b). ȱ The ȱ original ȱ site ȱ record ȱ and ȱ the ȱ 1999 ȱupdate ȱlocate ȱthe ȱsite ȱon ȱtop ȱof ȱaȱcoastal ȱbluff, ȱoverlooking ȱaȱ“sandy ȱbeach ȱto ȱthe ȱnorth ȱand ȱ aȱrocky ȱpromontory ȱto ȱthe ȱwest” ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1972). ȱBoth ȱrecords ȱindicate ȱthat ȱthe ȱsite ȱcontains ȱaȱ thin ȱdeposit ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden ȱand ȱlithic ȱmaterial. ȱȱ ȱ The ȱsite ȱwas ȱre Ȭlocated ȱfor ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy ȱand ȱwas ȱrecorded ȱas ȱhaving ȱtwo ȱloci ȱ(Locus ȱ1ȱ and ȱ2). ȱLocus ȱ1ȱconsists ȱof ȱthe ȱsite ȱboundaries ȱas ȱdefined ȱby ȱBaldwin ȱ(1972) ȱand ȱBrogan ȱand ȱ Lopez ȱ(1999 a). ȱLocus ȱ2ȱis ȱcomprised ȱof ȱanother ȱthin ȱdeposit ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden ȱand ȱlithics ȱthat ȱwas ȱ located ȱ approximately ȱ 30 ȱ mȱ west ȱ of ȱ Locus ȱ 1, ȱ across ȱ an ȱ exposed ȱ mudstone ȱ bridge. ȱ Observed ȱ shellfish ȱ species ȱ in ȱ both ȱ locations ȱ include ȱ California ȱ mussel, ȱ barnacle, ȱ abalone, ȱ chiton ȱ and ȱ limpet. ȱThe ȱlithics ȱincluded ȱFranciscan ȱchert ȱflakes, ȱprimarily ȱin ȱLocus ȱ2, ȱand ȱaȱbasalt ȱflake. ȱAȱ spire Ȭlopped ȱolivella ȱbead ȱwas ȱlocated ȱin ȱLocus ȱ1. ȱȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 22 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱ is ȱ aȱ prehistoric ȱ resource ȱ that ȱ was ȱ originally ȱ recorded ȱ in ȱ 1999 ȱ and ȱ described ȱ as ȱ consisting ȱof ȱmidden ȱcontaining ȱaȱlight ȱdensity ȱof ȱshell ȱand ȱaȱsparse ȱdeposit ȱof ȱMonterey ȱand ȱ Franciscan ȱchert ȱflakes ȱ(Lopez ȱand ȱBrogan ȱ199a). ȱAt ȱthe ȱtime ȱof ȱthe ȱupdate, ȱaȱdeposit ȱof ȱshell ȱ midden ȱand ȱlithics ȱwere ȱobserved ȱalong ȱaȱdensely ȱvegetated ȱpoint ȱof ȱland ȱthat ȱprotrudes ȱinto ȱ the ȱocean. ȱThe ȱshell ȱconsisted ȱof ȱfragments ȱof ȱabalon e, ȱchiton ȱand ȱlimpet. ȱȱ ȱ The ȱshell ȱmidden ȱcontours ȱalong ȱthe ȱnatural ȱshape ȱof ȱthe ȱpoint ȱof ȱland ȱthat ȱextends ȱinto ȱ the ȱocean. ȱFrom ȱthat ȱwestern Ȭmost ȱpoint ȱof ȱland, ȱthe ȱsite ȱextends ȱeastward ȱ16 ȱmeters. ȱThe ȱshape ȱ of ȱ the ȱ site ȱ is ȱ roughly ȱ triangular ȱ and ȱ sits ȱ atop ȱ steep ȱ slopes ȱ above ȱ the ȱ ocean. ȱ As ȱ the ȱ western ȱ boundary ȱof ȱthe ȱsite ȱis ȱrepresented ȱby ȱthe ȱedge ȱof ȱthe ȱcoastline, ȱthis ȱhas ȱmost ȱlikely ȱinfluenced ȱ the ȱ shaping ȱ of ȱ the ȱ site. ȱ The ȱ dense ȱ brush ȱ covers ȱ much ȱ of ȱ the ȱ site.ȱ The ȱ site ȱ is ȱ located ȱ approximately ȱ 162 ȱ m, ȱ following ȱ the ȱ coastline, ȱ north ȱ of ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ2041 ȱ and ȱ 64 ȱ mȱ south, ȱ following ȱthe ȱcoastline, ȱof ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ601. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱ prehistoric ȱ resource ȱ was ȱ originally ȱ recorded ȱ in ȱ 1999 ȱ and ȱ described ȱ as ȱ containing ȱ faunal ȱmaterial ȱand ȱshell ȱ(Lopez ȱand ȱBrogan ȱ1999b). ȱThe ȱsite ȱwas ȱre Ȭlocated ȱduring ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱ study ȱ and ȱ found ȱ to ȱ be ȱ consistent ȱ with ȱ the ȱ original ȱ recording. ȱ More ȱ than ȱ 40 ȱ fragments ȱ of ȱ abalone ȱ shell ȱ were ȱ observed ȱ that ȱ may ȱ represent ȱ only ȱ two ȱ minimum ȱ number ȱ of ȱ individuals; ȱ along ȱwith ȱaȱfragment ȱof ȱchiton, ȱowl ȱlimpet ȱand ȱgoose ȱneck ȱbarnacle. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱthat ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1979 ȱand ȱthe ȱrecord ȱupdated ȱ in ȱ1999 ȱ(Brandoff ȱ1979a; ȱBrogan ȱand ȱLopez ȱ1999c). ȱThe ȱoriginal ȱsite ȱrecord ȱdescribes ȱthe ȱsite ȱas ȱ containing ȱshell ȱmidden ȱwith ȱground ȱstone ȱfragments ȱand ȱchipped ȱstone ȱmaterial. ȱIt ȱalso ȱnotes ȱ minimal ȱ erosion; ȱ however, ȱ cattle ȱ disturbances ȱ was ȱ observed ȱ (Brandoff ȱ 1979a ). ȱ The ȱ 1999 ȱ updated ȱdescription ȱincludes ȱthe ȱpresence ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden ȱand ȱlithic ȱmaterials. ȱThe ȱ1999 ȱupdate ȱ augments ȱthe ȱoriginal ȱrecord ȱwith ȱthe ȱaddition ȱof ȱtwo ȱbedrock ȱmilling ȱstations; ȱone ȱstation ȱwith ȱ two ȱmortar ȱcups ȱand ȱthe ȱother ȱwith ȱaȱsingle ȱlarge ȱcup ȱ(Brogan ȱand ȱLopez ȱ1999c). ȱThe ȱartifacts ȱ observed ȱ included ȱ two ȱ whole ȱ pestles, ȱ one ȱ broken ȱ pestle ȱ and ȱ lithic ȱ debitage ȱ that ȱ included ȱ aȱ banded ȱ chert ȱ biface ȱ fragment. ȱ Cattle ȱ grazing ȱ was ȱ again ȱ noted ȱ as ȱ aȱ disturbance ȱ to ȱ the ȱ site ȱ (Brogan ȱand ȱLopez ȱ1999c). ȱȱ ȱ Shell ȱ midden ȱ was ȱ observed ȱ during ȱ the ȱ current ȱ study, ȱ as ȱ well ȱ as ȱ two ȱ bedrock ȱ milling ȱ stations, ȱFeature ȱ1ȱand ȱFeature ȱ2. ȱFeature ȱ1ȱwas ȱobserved ȱto ȱhave ȱthree ȱmortar ȱcups ȱand ȱFeature ȱ 2ȱhad ȱaȱsingle ȱmortar ȱcup. ȱAȱpestle ȱwas ȱlocated ȱon ȱthe ȱsurface ȱof ȱFeature ȱ1ȱand ȱwas ȱobserved ȱto ȱ have ȱbattered ȱends. ȱAȱspire ȱlopped ȱolivella ȱbead ȱwas ȱalso ȱobserved. ȱȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 23 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱ is ȱ aȱ prehistoric ȱ resource ȱ that ȱ is ȱ located ȱ at ȱ the ȱ mouth ȱ of ȱ the ȱ north ȱ bank ȱ of ȱ Prewitt ȱ Creek. ȱThis ȱsite ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱas ȱbeing ȱcomprised ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden, ȱlithics ȱand ȱspire Ȭ lopped ȱolivella ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971b). ȱIn ȱthe ȱoriginal ȱsite ȱrecord, ȱan ȱadditional ȱpage ȱis ȱattached ȱthat ȱ notes ȱthe ȱpresence ȱof ȱincised ȱglyph ȱstones .ȱȱ ȱ At ȱ the ȱ time ȱ of ȱ current ȱ study, ȱ dense ȱ shell ȱ midden, ȱ lithics ȱ and ȱ spire Ȭlopped ȱ beads ȱ were ȱ observed. ȱThe ȱshell ȱmidden ȱappeared ȱto ȱbe ȱmost ȱdense ȱat ȱthe ȱwestern ȱend ȱof ȱthe ȱsite. ȱHowever, ȱ the ȱabundance ȱof ȱvegetation ȱalong ȱthe ȱsouthern ȱboundary ȱof ȱthe ȱsite ȱobscured ȱground ȱvisibility ȱ and ȱ lent ȱ to ȱ the ȱ approximation ȱ of ȱ that ȱ boundary. ȱ The ȱ shellfish ȱ spe cies ȱ observed ȱ included ȱ California ȱmussel, ȱchiton, ȱtegula, ȱlimpet ȱand ȱabalone. ȱLithics, ȱin ȱthe ȱform ȱof ȱchert ȱflakes ȱand ȱfire ȱ cracked ȱrock ȱ(FCR) ȱwere ȱalso ȱobserved. ȱTwo ȱspire Ȭlopped ȱolivella ȱbeads ȱwere ȱalso ȱlocated. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱ is ȱ aȱ prehistoric ȱ resource, ȱ located ȱ on ȱ aȱsouthern ȱ sloping, ȱ lower ȱ terrace, ȱ just ȱ north ȱ of ȱ Prewitt ȱ Creek. ȱ The ȱ site ȱ consists ȱ of ȱ midden, ȱ containing ȱ aȱ variable ȱ density ȱ of ȱ shell ȱ deposited ȱ throughout ȱ the ȱmidden. ȱThis ȱsite ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱ by ȱWhitlaw ȱand ȱHamp ȱ(1980). ȱThe ȱ site ȱ was ȱ described ȱ as ȱ aȱ shell ȱ midden ȱ site, ȱ containing ȱ aȱ few ȱ chert ȱ flakes ȱ (Whitlaw ȱ and ȱ Hamp ȱ 1980). ȱAt ȱthe ȱtime ȱof ȱthe ȱoriginal ȱrecording, ȱthe ȱvegetation ȱwas ȱdescribed ȱas ȱpasture ȱand ȱshort ȱ grasses. ȱThe ȱoverall ȱenvironment ȱwas ȱcharacterized ȱas ȱpasture ȱand ȱopen ȱspace ȱ(Whitlaw ȱand ȱ Hamp ȱ1980). ȱThe ȱcurrent ȱvegetation, ȱtall ȱgrasses ȱand ȱdense ȱriparian ȱcorridor ȱlimited ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱ recording. ȱȱ ȱ The ȱ species ȱ of ȱ shell ȱ observed ȱ include ȱ California ȱ mussel, ȱ abalone, ȱ chiton, ȱ limpet ȱ and ȱ barnacle. ȱLithics ȱwere ȱnot ȱobserved ȱat ȱthe ȱtime ȱof ȱrecording. ȱThe ȱsouthern ȱboundary ȱof ȱthis ȱsite ȱ was ȱ incompletely ȱ defined ȱ and ȱ the ȱ midden ȱ may ȱ continue ȱ southward ȱ to ȱ the ȱ creek. ȱ Due ȱ to ȱ the ȱ dense ȱ amount ȱ of ȱ vegetation ȱ along ȱ the ȱ Prewitt ȱ Creek ȱ corridor, ȱ the ȱ ground ȱ surface ȱ was ȱ not ȱ visible ȱand ȱcreek ȱaccess ȱwas ȱlimited. ȱȱ ȱ The ȱsite ȱis ȱlocated ȱapproximately ȱ46 ȱmȱwest ȱof ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ600 ȱand ȱapproximately ȱ150 ȱmȱeast ȱ of ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ466. ȱIn ȱthe ȱ1994 ȱupdate ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ600, ȱthat ȱsite ȱboundary ȱis ȱrecorded ȱas ȱ225 ȱmȱ (E/W) ȱ ×ȱ 55 ȱ mȱ (N/S) ȱ an dȱ may ȱ actually ȱ encompass ȱ CA ȬMNT Ȭ1025 ȱ (Maliarik ȱ 1994b). ȱ However, ȱ despite ȱ the ȱ proximity ȱ of ȱ these ȱ site ȱ locations, ȱ surface ȱ cultural ȱ constituents ȱ were ȱ not ȱ observed ȱ between ȱthese ȱsites ȱand ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ600 ȱand ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1025 ȱhave ȱbeen ȱrecorded ȱseparately. ȱȱ  &$017 ȱ At ȱthe ȱtime ȱof ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy, ȱthis ȱsite ȱwas ȱre Ȭlocated ȱ100 ȱmȱwest ȱof ȱState ȱRoute ȱ1, ȱjust ȱ north ȱof ȱPrewitt ȱCreek. ȱThe ȱsouthern ȱboundary ȱof ȱthe ȱsite ȱis ȱapproximated, ȱas ȱthere ȱwas ȱpoor ȱ ground ȱ visibility ȱ and ȱ inaccessibility ȱ to ȱ the ȱ northern ȱ edge ȱ of ȱ the ȱ creek ȱ due ȱ to ȱ dense ȱ riparian ȱ vegetation. ȱThe ȱcultural ȱconstituents ȱincluded ȱaȱthin, ȱintermittent ȱdeposit ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden ȱthat ȱ was ȱ concen trated ȱ withinȱ the ȱ south western ȱ site ȱ boundary. ȱ The ȱ shellfish ȱ observed ȱ included ȱ California ȱ mussel, ȱ abalone, ȱ and ȱ limpet. ȱ Aȱ Monterey ȱ chert ȱ point ȱ fragment ȱ was ȱ also ȱ located, ȱ AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 24 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ within ȱthe ȱmain ȱshell ȱmidden ȱdeposit. ȱThe ȱsite ȱboundary ȱthat ȱwas ȱrecorded ȱon ȱ28 ȱJune ȱ2012, ȱ may ȱbe ȱreduced ȱfrom ȱprevious ȱrecordings ȱ(Breschini ȱ1973, ȱMaliarik ȱ1994b). ȱThe ȱsurface ȱof ȱthis ȱ site ȱhas ȱbeen ȱadversely ȱimpacted ȱover ȱthe ȱyears ȱby ȱlooting, ȱcattle, ȱinstallment ȱand ȱremoval ȱof ȱ corrals ȱ and ȱ fence ȱ lines ȱ (Breschini ȱ 1978, ȱ Maliarik ȱ 1994). ȱ Theseȱ factors ȱ may ȱ contribute ȱ to ȱ the ȱ sparse ȱlithics ȱand ȱshell ȱmidden ȱobserved ȱduring ȱthe ȱ2012 ȱsurvey ȱand ȱin ȱthe ȱ1994 ȱupdate. ȱThis ȱ site ȱhas ȱbeen ȱnoted ȱto ȱhave ȱbeen ȱroutinely ȱlooted ȱand ȱin ȱfact, ȱaȱcollection ȱfrom ȱan ȱindividual ȱ was ȱturned ȱover ȱto ȱthe ȱUS ȱForest ȱService ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1994b). ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱ is ȱ aȱ prehistoric ȱ resource ȱ that ȱ was ȱ originally ȱ recorded ȱ in ȱ 1973 ȱ and ȱ updated ȱ in ȱ 1974 ȱ (Culver ȱand ȱGibson ȱ1973; ȱHorne ȱ1974). ȱThe ȱ1973 ȱand ȱ1974 ȱrecords ȱdescribe ȱthe ȱsite ȱas ȱaȱsmall ȱ deposit ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden. ȱAn ȱauger ȱtest ȱrevealed ȱthat ȱaȱsegment ȱof ȱthe ȱsite ȱhad ȱaȱdepth ȱof ȱ0.50 ȱmȱ (Horne ȱ1974). ȱDuring ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy, ȱanthropogenic ȱsoil ȱwas ȱlocated ȱand ȱrecorded, ȱhowever, ȱ shell ȱwas ȱnot ȱobserved. ȱAȱMonterey ȱchert ȱbiface ȱand ȱtwo ȱMonterey ȱchert ȱflakes ȱwere ȱlocated. ȱ Lithics ȱ were ȱ not ȱ noted ȱ in ȱ the ȱ 1973 ȱ record ȱ or ȱ in ȱ the ȱ 1974 ȱ update. ȱ This ȱ site ȱ may ȱ have ȱ been ȱ adversely ȱaffected ȱby ȱse veral ȱdifferent ȱfactors. ȱIn ȱthe ȱ1973 ȱrecord, ȱaȱleach ȱfield ȱwas ȱnoted ȱto ȱbe ȱ located ȱjust ȱupslope ȱand ȱto ȱthe ȱsoutheast ȱof ȱthe ȱsite. ȱIn ȱaddition, ȱabandoned ȱfarm ȱequipment ȱ was ȱ observed ȱ within ȱ the ȱ vicinity ȱ of ȱ the ȱ site ȱ boundary ȱ (Horne ȱ 1974). ȱ During ȱ the ȱ most ȱ recent ȱ recording, ȱ aȱ fence ȱ lineȱ was ȱ observed ȱ to ȱ intersect ȱ the ȱ site ȱ and ȱ cattle ȱ grazing ȱ was ȱ evident.ȱ The ȱ vegetation ȱwas ȱhigh ȱand ȱdense, ȱobscuring ȱground ȱvisibility, ȱespecially ȱalong ȱthe ȱsouthern ȱbank ȱ of ȱPrewitt ȱCreek. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱthat ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1974 ȱ(Home ȱ1974). ȱThe ȱsite ȱ was ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱsmall ȱshell ȱmidden ȱdeposit ȱsituated ȱon ȱaȱsmall ȱterrace ȱon ȱthe ȱsouth ȱbank ȱof ȱ Prewitt ȱCreek. ȱAn ȱauger ȱsample ȱwas ȱtaken ȱfrom ȱthe ȱsite ȱan ȱrevealed ȱaȱdepth ȱof ȱ0.50 ȱmȱ(Home ȱ 1974). ȱDuring ȱthe ȱcurren tȱstudy, ȱthe ȱsite ȱwas ȱre Ȭlocated ȱ124 ȱmȱwest ȱof ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ577 ȱand ȱ83 ȱmȱ east ȱof ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ467. ȱThis ȱresource ȱconsists ȱof ȱaȱroughly ȱ10 ȱmȱȱ by ȱ10 ȱmȱdiscrete ȱshell ȱmidden ȱ deposit ȱlocated ȱmidslope ȱon ȱaȱgently ȱsloping ȱterrace ȱon ȱthe ȱsouth ȱbank ȱof ȱPrewitt ȱCreek. ȱNo ȱ other ȱartifacts ȱwere ȱobserved ȱwithin ȱthe ȱshell ȱmidden ȱdeposit. ȱAȱfence ȱline ȱis ȱlocated ȱjust ȱnorth ȱ of ȱthe ȱdeposit; ȱevidence ȱof ȱcattle ȱgrazing ȱand ȱbioturbation ȱwas ȱobserved. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱis ȱan ȱupdate ȱfor ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱconsisting ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden, ȱaȱlithic ȱdeposit ȱand ȱ aȱ bedrock ȱ mortar ȱ feature, ȱ originally ȱ recorded ȱ in ȱ 1971 ȱ (Baldwin ȱ 1971c). ȱ The ȱ site ȱ boundary ȱ conforms ȱto ȱthe ȱedge ȱof ȱthe ȱsteep ȱcoastal ȱbluff, ȱalong ȱthe ȱsouth ȱbank ȱof ȱwhere ȱPrewitt ȱCreek ȱ empties ȱ into ȱ the ȱ ocean. ȱ The ȱ western ȱ portion ȱ of ȱ the ȱ site ȱ contains ȱ the ȱ densest ȱ concentration ȱ of ȱ anthropogenic ȱ soil, ȱ whole ȱ and ȱ fragments ȱ of ȱ shell ȱ (which ȱ include ȱ mussel, ȱ limpet, ȱ barnacle, ȱ tegula, ȱand ȱabalone), ȱlithics, ȱfire ȱcracked ȱand ȱaffected ȱrock. ȱThe ȱlithics ȱare ȱcomprised ȱprimarily ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 25 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ of ȱFranciscan ȱchert ȱflakes, ȱhowever, ȱaȱFranciscan ȱchert ȱbiface ȱwas ȱalso ȱlocated. ȱAn ȱolivella ȱspire Ȭ lopped ȱbead ȱand ȱaȱbedrock ȱmortar ȱfeature ȱwere ȱalso ȱobserved ȱwithin ȱthe ȱwestern ȱextent ȱof ȱthe ȱ site. ȱAȱbedrock ȱmortar ȱfeature, ȱwith ȱfive ȱmortar ȱcups, ȱis ȱlocated ȱin ȱthe ȱnorthwestern ȱextent ȱof ȱ the ȱsite ȱboundary ȱon ȱthe ȱsmall ȱpoint ȱof ȱland ȱthat ȱextends ȱinto ȱthe ȱocean. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱ is ȱ aȱ prehistoric ȱ resource ȱ that ȱ was ȱ originally ȱ recorded ȱ in ȱ 1976. ȱ ȱ The ȱ site ȱ record ȱ was ȱ updated ȱ in ȱ 1979 ȱ and ȱ again ȱ for ȱ the ȱ current ȱ study ȱ (Baldwin ȱ 1976; ȱ Brandoff ȱ 1979b). ȱ The ȱ site ȱ is ȱ located ȱ along ȱ aȱ steep ȱ coastal ȱ bluff ȱ lineȱ and ȱ is ȱ comprised ȱ of ȱ shell ȱ midden, ȱ with ȱ the ȱ predominantly ȱobserved ȱspecies ȱbeing ȱCalifornia ȱmussel. ȱConcentrated ȱareas ȱof ȱlithic ȱdeposits, ȱ including ȱbifaces, ȱpoints, ȱcores ȱand ȱ flakes ȱas ȱwell ȱas ȱgroundstone ȱfragments ȱand ȱfire Ȭaffected ȱ rocks ȱ were ȱ observed. ȱ As ȱ in ȱ the ȱ previous ȱ site ȱ records, ȱ erosion ȱ was ȱ noted. ȱ The ȱ vegetation ȱ was ȱ dense ȱand ȱincluded ȱlong, ȱinvasive ȱgrasses, ȱice ȱplants, ȱsage ȱbrush ȱand ȱferns. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱthat ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1979. ȱThe ȱoriginal ȱsite ȱrecord ȱ describes ȱthe ȱsite ȱas ȱaȱlight ȱshell ȱmidden ȱdeposit ȱwith ȱaȱsparse ȱchipped ȱstone ȱscatter ȱ(Brandoff ȱ 1979c). ȱThe ȱsite ȱis ȱlocated ȱat ȱthe ȱedge ȱof ȱaȱcoastal ȱbluff, ȱand ȱoverlooking ȱthe ȱPacific ȱOcean. ȱIt ȱwas ȱ re Ȭlocated ȱ during ȱ the ȱ current ȱ study. ȱ Aȱ light ȱ deposit ȱ of ȱ shell ȱ and ȱ Monterey ȱ chert ȱ flakes ȱ were ȱ observed. ȱIn ȱaddition ȱthe ȱsite’s ȱboundary ȱwas ȱaugmented ȱto ȱinclude ȱtwo ȱmortar ȱcups ȱthat ȱwere ȱ located ȱin ȱthe ȱnearby ȱrock ȱoutcrop. ȱThe ȱvegetation ȱwas ȱfairly ȱdense, ȱleaving ȱground ȱvisibility ȱ low. ȱVegetation ȱincluded ȱpoison ȱoak, ȱsage ȱbrush, ȱmustard, ȱand ȱcoastal ȱscrub. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱthat ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱAugust ȱ1979, ȱand ȱdescribed ȱas ȱ aȱ medium ȱ brown ȱ sandy ȱ loam ȱ midden ȱ deposit ȱ containing ȱ shell ȱ fragments ȱ and ȱ chipped ȱ stone ȱ (Brogan ȱ1979). ȱThe ȱsurface ȱmidden ȱdeposit ȱis ȱdescribed ȱas ȱlow ȱdensity, ȱhowever, ȱchipped ȱstone ȱ was ȱobserved ȱin ȱrodent ȱtailings, ȱindicating ȱaȱpossibility ȱof ȱaȱsubsurface ȱdeposit. ȱThis ȱarea ȱmay ȱ have ȱbeen ȱcultivated ȱin ȱthe ȱhomesteading ȱera ȱand ȱwas ȱdisced ȱin ȱthe ȱearly ȱ1960s ȱ(Brogan ȱ1979d). ȱȱ ȱ The ȱsite ȱwas ȱrevisited ȱduring ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy. ȱGround ȱvisibility ȱwas ȱrelatively ȱlow ȱas ȱthe ȱ site, ȱ and ȱ the ȱ surrounding ȱ area, ȱ was ȱ covered ȱ in ȱ dense ȱ vegetation. ȱ The ȱ vegetation ȱ included ȱ poison ȱoak, ȱcoyote ȱbrush, ȱcoffee ȱberry, ȱthistles, ȱCalifornia ȱsage, ȱmust ard ȱand ȱhemlock. ȱAȱlow ȱ density ȱ deposit ȱ of ȱ lithics ȱ was ȱ observed ȱ within ȱ the ȱ shell ȱ midden. ȱ Lithics ȱ included ȱ quartz, ȱ fire ȱ cracked ȱrock, ȱand ȱan ȱobsidian ȱpressure ȱflake. ȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 26 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱ is ȱ aȱ prehistoric ȱ resource, ȱ consisting ȱ of ȱ shell ȱ midden, ȱ aȱ lithic ȱ deposit ȱ and ȱ aȱ bedrock ȱ mortar ȱfeature ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971d). ȱȱ The ȱlithic ȱdeposit ȱcontained ȱseveral ȱchert ȱflakes, ȱ3ȱprojectile ȱ points, ȱ2ȱprojectile ȱpoint ȱbases ȱand ȱaȱbiface ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971d). ȱȱ The ȱupdate ȱfor ȱthe ȱsite ȱrecords ȱ similar ȱobservations, ȱhowever, ȱdoes ȱnot ȱinclude ȱthe ȱbedrock ȱmortar ȱfeature ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1996b). ȱȱȱ ȱ This ȱsite ȱwas ȱre Ȭlocated ȱduring ȱthe ȱ2012 ȱCabrillo ȱCollege ȱArchaeological ȱField ȱSchool. ȱȱ The ȱ bedrock ȱmilling ȱfeature ȱwas ȱre Ȭlocated ȱand ȱaȱsparse ȱlithic ȱdeposit, ȱconsisting ȱof ȱeight ȱMonterey ȱ chert ȱflakes ȱwere ȱobserved ȱsouth ȱof ȱthis ȱfeature. ȱShell ȱmidden ȱwas ȱnot ȱobserved. ȱThe ȱsite ȱmay ȱ have ȱbeen ȱaffected ȱby ȱcattle ȱgrazin gȱand ȱby ȱpublic ȱaccess ȱas ȱan ȱestablished ȱpath ȱintersects ȱthe ȱ site. ȱ Aside ȱ from ȱ the ȱ clearing ȱ for ȱ the ȱ path, ȱ ground ȱ surface ȱ visibility ȱ was ȱ obscured ȱ by ȱ dense ȱ vegetation ȱthat ȱincluded ȱhigh ȱgrasses, ȱpoison ȱoak ȱand ȱcoastal ȱscrub. ȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱ site ȱ was ȱ originally ȱ recorded ȱ in ȱ 1971 ȱ as ȱ aȱ small ȱ shell ȱ midden ȱ site ȱ with ȱ California ȱ mussel, ȱ abalone, ȱ chiton, ȱ and ȱ turban ȱ snail; ȱ 1ȱ “chert ȱ chip” ȱ was ȱ also ȱ observed ȱ (Baldwin ȱ 1971e). ȱ The ȱsite ȱrecord ȱwas ȱupdated ȱin ȱ1996 ȱand ȱwas ȱnoted ȱto ȱhave ȱbeen ȱimpacted ȱby ȱrodent ȱburrows ȱ and ȱ cattle ȱ grazing. ȱ MNT Ȭ469 ȱ was ȱ described ȱ as ȱ being ȱ aȱ small ȱ shell ȱ midden ȱ site ȱ with ȱ shell ȱ fragments ȱconsistent ȱwi th ȱthe ȱearlier ȱrecording ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1996c). ȱLithics ȱwere ȱnot ȱnoted ȱin ȱthe ȱ 1996 ȱupdate. ȱȱ ȱ During ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy, ȱthe ȱsite ȱwas ȱre Ȭlocated ȱjust ȱsouth ȱof ȱaȱlarge ȱgreywacke ȱsandstone ȱ outcrop ȱon ȱaȱsmall ȱknoll ȱalong ȱthe ȱedge ȱof ȱthe ȱcoastline. ȱGr ound ȱvisibility ȱwas ȱlimited ȱas ȱdense ȱ vegetation ȱ permeated ȱ the ȱ region. ȱ Amid ȱ the ȱ vegetation, ȱ midden ȱ and ȱ shell ȱ consisting ȱ of ȱ California ȱ mussel, ȱ limpet, ȱ abalone ȱ and ȱ barnacle ȱ was ȱ observed. ȱ Aȱ single ȱ Monterey ȱ chert ȱ flake ȱ was ȱalso ȱlocated. ȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱthat ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1971 ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971f). ȱThe ȱsite ȱ record ȱdescribes ȱthe ȱsite ȱas ȱbeing ȱcomprised ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden ȱwith ȱan ȱassociated ȱlithic ȱdeposit, ȱaȱ fish Ȭhook ȱfragment ȱand ȱfire ȱaffected ȱrock. ȱThe ȱoriginal ȱsite ȱrecord ȱreports ȱthat ȱtwo ȱburials ȱhad ȱ been ȱrecovered ȱfrom ȱthe ȱsite ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971f). ȱIt ȱalso ȱnotes ȱthat ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ471 ȱand ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ424, ȱ located ȱto ȱthe ȱeast, ȱon ȱthe ȱnorthbound ȱside ȱof ȱCalifornia ȱState ȱRoute ȱ1ȱmay ȱhave ȱbeen ȱaȱsingle ȱ site ȱprior ȱto ȱthe ȱcreation ȱof ȱthe ȱroad ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971f). ȱOther ȱimpacts ȱto ȱthe ȱsite ȱinclude ȱrodents ȱ and ȱlooting ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971f). ȱThe ȱ19 92 ȱsite ȱrecord ȱupdate ȱprovides ȱaȱmore ȱaccurate ȱlocation ȱmap ȱ of ȱthe ȱsite; ȱthe ȱsite ȱis ȱdescribed ȱas ȱaȱshell ȱmidden ȱdeposit ȱwith ȱaȱsparser ȱassociated ȱlithic ȱdeposit ȱ but ȱincludes ȱaȱbedrock ȱmortar ȱfeature ȱwith ȱfour ȱmilling ȱstations ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1992a). ȱȱ ȱ At ȱthe ȱtime ȱof ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy’s ȱfield ȱcomponent, ȱthe ȱsite ȱwas ȱobserved ȱto ȱbe ȱcomprised ȱ of ȱaȱhigh ȱdensity ȱshell ȱmidden, ȱlithics ȱand ȱaȱbedrock ȱmilling ȱfeature ȱwith ȱ4ȱmilling ȱstations. ȱThe ȱ lithic ȱ deposit ȱ was ȱ relatively ȱ sparse, ȱ but ȱ primarily ȱ included ȱ Franciscan ȱ chert ȱ flakes ȱ and ȱ an ȱ obsidian ȱflake. ȱAn ȱolivella ȱshell ȱbead ȱwas ȱalso ȱlocated. ȱImpacts ȱto ȱthe ȱsite ȱincluded ȱthe ȱfreeway, ȱ AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 27 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ aȱ pedestrian ȱ pathway ȱ at ȱ the ȱ eastern ȱ extent ȱ of ȱ the ȱ site, ȱ rodent ȱ disturbance, ȱ and ȱ signs ȱ of ȱ cattle ȱ graving ȱwere ȱevident. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱconsisting ȱof ȱdense ȱshell ȱmidden ȱand ȱaȱlithic ȱconcentration. ȱIt ȱ is ȱlocated ȱalong ȱthe ȱnorth ȱbank ȱof ȱPlaskett ȱCreek, ȱdirectly ȱacross ȱfrom ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ283 ȱand ȱ75 ȱmȱ west, ȱacross ȱaȱsmall ȱdrainage, ȱfromȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ716. ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ472 ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1971 ȱ (Baldwin ȱ1971g). ȱThe ȱsit eȱrecord ȱwas ȱupdated ȱin ȱ1992 ȱand ȱthe ȱboundary ȱwas ȱreduced ȱ(Maliarik ȱ 1992b). ȱ The ȱ original ȱ site ȱ record ȱ notes ȱ shell ȱ midden ȱ extending ȱ towards ȱ the ȱ ocean ȱ bluff, ȱ four ȱ projectile ȱpoints, ȱtwo ȱpoint ȱfragments ȱand ȱchert ȱflakes ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971g). ȱIn ȱthe ȱ1992 ȱupdate, ȱthe ȱ site ȱwas ȱobserved ȱto ȱcontain ȱaȱmoderately ȱdense ȱshell ȱmidden ȱand ȱaȱlight ȱscatter ȱof ȱFranciscan ȱ chert ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1992). ȱRodent ȱand ȱcattle ȱdisturbance ȱwere ȱalso ȱobserved. ȱCow ȱpaths ȱwere ȱnoted ȱ as ȱcausing ȱerosion ȱand ȱthe ȱtopsoil ȱshowed ȱsigns ȱof ȱchurning ȱ(Maliarik ȱ1992b). ȱȱ ȱ This ȱsite ȱwas ȱre Ȭlocated ȱduring ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy. ȱAȱhigh ȱconcentration ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden, ȱ that ȱ included ȱ mussel, ȱ limpet, ȱ chiton, ȱ and ȱ abalone ȱ were ȱ observed. ȱ Monterey ȱ and ȱ Franciscan ȱ chert ȱflakes ȱwere ȱobserved ȱas ȱwell ȱas ȱone ȱFranciscan ȱchert ȱbiface ȱand ȱaȱMonterey ȱchert ȱbiface ȱ fragment. ȱȱ ȱ &$017 ȱ This ȱis ȱaȱprehistoric ȱresource ȱthat ȱwas ȱoriginally ȱrecorded ȱin ȱ1951 ȱas ȱaȱshell ȱmidden ȱsite ȱ with ȱone ȱchert ȱblade ȱ(Meighan:1951). ȱThe ȱrecord ȱwas ȱupdated ȱin ȱ1971 ȱand ȱnoted ȱthat ȱthe ȱsite ȱ contained ȱshell ȱmidden, ȱMonterey ȱchert ȱchips, ȱground ȱstone ȱflakes ȱas ȱwell ȱas ȱpossible ȱtools ȱand ȱ aȱpossible ȱbroken ȱpestle ȱ(Baldwin ȱ1971h). ȱ ȱ During ȱ the ȱ 20current ȱ field ȱ study, ȱ ,ȱ the ȱ site ȱ was ȱ re Ȭlocated ȱ through ȱ dense ȱ vegetation, ȱ including ȱpoison ȱoak ȱand ȱcoyote ȱbrush. ȱThe ȱsite ȱwas ȱobserved ȱto ȱbe ȱcomprised ȱof ȱshell ȱmidden ȱ and ȱ aȱ Monterey ȱ and ȱ Franciscan ȱ chert ȱ lithic ȱ deposit. ȱ Aȱ complete ȱ Monterey ȱ chert ȱ biface ȱ and ȱ aȱ spire Ȭground ȱ olivella ȱ bead ȱ were ȱ als oȱ located. ȱ The ȱ sh ell ȱ midden ȱ was ȱ observed ȱ to ȱ contain ȱ predominantly ȱmussel ȱand ȱlimpet ȱfragments. ȱȱ ȱ &$017+ ȱ This ȱ site ȱ is ȱ recorded ȱ as ȱ aȱ multi Ȭcomponent ȱ site ȱ (Barnette ȱ and ȱ Brandoff ȱ 1978). ȱ The ȱ prehistoric ȱ component ȱ is ȱ comprised ȱ of ȱ aȱ shell ȱ midden ȱ concentration ȱ and ȱ lithic ȱ deposit. ȱ The ȱ historic Ȭera ȱ component ȱ consists ȱ of ȱ aȱ stone ȱ wall ȱ foundation ȱ and ȱ glass ȱ and ȱ ceramic ȱ fragments. ȱ The ȱ1998 ȱupdate ȱsurvey ȱresulted ȱin ȱabalone ȱfragments, ȱchert ȱflakes, ȱand ȱaȱwhite ȱglazed ȱceramic ȱ sherd ȱbeing ȱlocated. ȱAba lone ȱpendants ȱand ȱseven ȱceramic ȱsherds ȱwere ȱcollected. ȱThe ȱrock ȱwall ȱ was ȱnot ȱlocated ȱand ȱpoor ȱvisibility ȱcaused ȱby ȱdense ȱvegetation ȱwas ȱnoted ȱ(Mikkelsen ȱ1998b). ȱ The ȱ 2004 ȱ update ȱ notes ȱ that ȱ the ȱ site ȱ appeared ȱ to ȱ be ȱ in ȱ the ȱ same ȱ condition ȱ as ȱ it ȱ did ȱ in ȱ 1998 ȱ (Leach ȬPalm ȱ2004). ȱȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 28 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ As ȱpart ȱof ȱthe ȱcurrent ȱstudy, ȱthe ȱlocation ȱwhere ȱthe ȱsite ȱis ȱplotted ȱwas ȱsurveyed. ȱAȱcrew ȱof ȱ 10 ȱstudents ȱand ȱ4ȱcrew ȱchiefs ȱwalked ȱin ȱtransect ȱlines, ȱ1ȱmȱapart ȱthrough ȱdense ȱvegetation ȱto ȱre Ȭ locate ȱthe ȱsite. ȱThis ȱsurvey ȱresulted ȱin ȱaȱtotal ȱof ȱ3ȱMonterey ȱchert ȱflakes ȱbeing ȱlocated ȱnear ȱthe ȱ western ȱ site ȱ boundary. ȱ No ȱ historic Ȭera ȱ artifacts ȱ or ȱ features ȱ were ȱ observed. ȱ The ȱ current ȱ site ȱ conditions ȱ appear ȱ to ȱ be ȱ consistent ȱ with ȱ the ȱ 1998 ȱ and ȱ 2004 ȱ updates ȱ for ȱ this ȱ site ȱ in ȱ that ȱ the ȱ vegetation ȱwas ȱexceedingly ȱdense. ȱThe ȱvegetation ȱhas ȱmost ȱlikely ȱbecome ȱprogressively ȱdense ȱ since ȱthe ȱ2004 ȱupdate, ȱlending ȱto ȱthe ȱpaucity ȱof ȱartifacts ȱth at ȱwere ȱobserved ȱ(Leach ȬPalm ȱ2004; ȱ Mikkelsen ȱ1998b). ȱȱ ȱ 81$17,&,3$7('$5&+$(2/2*,&$/5(6285&(6 ȱ There ȱ is ȱ aȱ high ȱ possibility ȱ that ȱ subsurface ȱ archaeological ȱ deposits ȱ may ȱ exist ȱ within ȱ the ȱ study ȱarea, ȱgiven ȱthe ȱarchaeological ȱsensitivity ȱof ȱthe ȱarea ȱand ȱthat ȱthe ȱvegetation ȱthroughout ȱ the ȱstudy ȱarea ȱwas ȱdense ȱcreating ȱaȱlow ȱvisibility ȱfor ȱthe ȱground ȱsurface. ȱȱ ȱ Prehistoric ȱ materials ȱ might ȱ include ȱ obsidian ȱ and ȱ chert ȱ flaked Ȭstone ȱ tools ȱ (e.g., ȱ projectile ȱ points, ȱknives, ȱscrapers) ȱor ȱtoolmaking ȱdebris; ȱculturally ȱdarkened ȱsoil ȱ(“midden”) ȱcontaining ȱ heat Ȭaffected ȱ rock, ȱ artifacts, ȱ or ȱ shellfish ȱ remains; ȱ and ȱ stone ȱ milling ȱ equipment ȱ (e.g., ȱ mortars, ȱ pestles, ȱhandstones). ȱHistorical ȱmaterials ȱmight ȱinclude ȱstone, ȱconcrete, ȱor ȱadobe ȱfootings ȱand ȱ walls; ȱfilled ȱwellsȱor ȱprivies; ȱand ȱdeposits ȱof ȱmetal, ȱglass, ȱand/or ȱceramic ȱartifacts. ȱ ȱ (1&2817(5,1*+80$15(0$,16 ȱ The ȱ possibility ȱ of ȱ encountering ȱ human ȱ remains ȱ in ȱ the ȱ study ȱ area ȱ cannot ȱ be ȱ discounted. ȱ Section ȱ 7050.5 ȱ of ȱ the ȱ California ȱ Health ȱ and ȱ Safety ȱ Code ȱ states ȱ that ȱ it ȱ is ȱ aȱ misdemeanor ȱ to ȱ knowingly ȱdisturb ȱaȱhuman ȱburial. ȱIf ȱhuman ȱburials ȱare ȱencountered, ȱwork ȱshould ȱhalt ȱin ȱthe ȱ vicinity ȱ and ȱ the ȱ County ȱ Coroner ȱ should ȱ be ȱ notified ȱ immediately. ȱ At ȱ the ȱ same ȱ time, ȱ an ȱ archaeologist ȱshould ȱbe ȱcontacted ȱto ȱevaluate ȱthe ȱsituation. ȱȱ ȱ If ȱ human ȱ re mains ȱ are ȱ of ȱ Native ȱ American ȱ origin, ȱ the ȱ Coroner ȱ must ȱ notify ȱ the ȱ Native ȱ American ȱHeritage ȱCommission ȱwithin ȱ24 ȱhours. ȱThe ȱCommission ȱthen ȱnotifies ȱthe ȱMost ȱLikely ȱ Descendant, ȱwho ȱhas ȱ48 ȱhours ȱto ȱmake ȱrecommendations ȱto ȱthe ȱlandowner ȱfor ȱthe ȱdisposition ȱ of ȱthe ȱremains. ȱȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 29 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 5()(5(1&(6&,7(' ȱ ȱ Anderegg, ȱWilliam ȱR., ȱJames ȱW. ȱPrall, ȱJacob ȱHarold, ȱand ȱStephen ȱH. ȱSchneider ȱ ȱ 2010 ȱ Expert ȱCredibility ȱin ȱClimate ȱChange. ȱProceedings ȱof ȱthe ȱNational ȱAcademy ȱof ȱSciences .ȱOnline ȱat ȱ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/ ȱ04/1003187107.full.pdf+html ȱ(accessed ȱ12 ȱ December ȱ2011). ȱ ȱ Baldwin, ȱMary ȱA. ȱ ȱ 1971a ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ602. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohn ert ȱPark,ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1971b ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ466. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1971c ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ467. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1971d ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱMNT Ȭ468. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱIn formation ȱCenter, ȱRohn ert ȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1971e ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ469. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1971f ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ471. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1971g ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ472. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohn ert ȱPark,ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1971h ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ283. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1972 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ601. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1973 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ300. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPar k, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1976 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ692. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Barnette, ȱKaren ȱand ȱJoan ȱBrandoff ȱ ȱ 1978 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ946/H. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 30 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Bennyhoff, ȱJ.A. ȱand ȱC. ȱBennyhoff ȱ ȱ 1954 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ300. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Bennyhoff, ȱJ. ȱA. ȱand ȱR.E. ȱHughes ȱ ȱ 1987 ȱ Shell ȱBead ȱand ȱOrnamentation ȱExchange ȱNetworks ȱBetween ȱCalifornia ȱand ȱthe ȱWestern ȱGreat ȱ Basin. ȱAnthropological ȱPapers ȱof ȱthe ȱAmerican ȱMuseum ȱof ȱNatural ȱHistory ȱ64 :79Ȭ175. ȱ ȱ Brandoff, ȱJoan ȱ ȱ 1977 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ716. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1979a ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1053. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1979b ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ692. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohn ert ȱPark,ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1979c ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1303. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1979d ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1304. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Brandoff, ȱJoan ȱand ȱKaren ȱBarnette ȱ ȱ 1978 ȱ Site ȱre cord ȱforȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ71 6. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Breschini, ȱGary ȱ ȱ ȱ 1973 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ600. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1974 ȱ Letter ȱto ȱRob ȱEdwards, ȱSociety ȱfor ȱCalifornia ȱArchaeology, ȱDistrict ȱVȱArchaeologist. ȱȱ Concerning ȱArchaeological ȱResources ȱof ȱthe ȱMonter ey ȱDistrict ȱof ȱthe ȱLos ȱPa dres ȱNation, ȱ regarding ȱlooting ȱat ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ471. ȱȱ Letter ȱreport ȱto ȱRob ȱEdwards, ȱdated ȱ6ȱAugust ȱ1974. ȱȱ Archaeological ȱConsulting, ȱSalinas, ȱCalifornia. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱ Rohnert ȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1978 ȱ Response ȱLetter ȱConcerning ȱArchaeological ȱResources ȱof ȱthe ȱMonterey ȱDistrict ȱof ȱthe ȱLo sȱ Padres ȱNat ional ȱForest. ȱȱ Letter ȱreport ȱto ȱLos ȱPadres ȱNational ȱForest, ȱdated ȱ16 ȱNovember ȱ1978. ȱȱ Archaeological ȱConsulting, ȱSalinas, ȱCalifornia. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱ Rohnert ȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ Breschini, ȱGary ȱand ȱTrudy ȱHaversat ȱ ȱ 2004 ȱ Archaeological ȱInvestigations ȱat ȱthe ȱPacific ȱValley ȱSchool, ȱSouthern ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱ California. ȱStudy ȱ28559. ȱOn ȱfi le ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCent er, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 31 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 2005 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ945. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Brogan, ȱJohn ȱand ȱJim ȱLopez ȱ ȱ 1999a ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ602. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1999b ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ601. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohn ert ȱPark,ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1999c ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1053. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ California ȱDepartment ȱof ȱParks ȱand ȱRecreation ȱ ȱ 1976 ȱ California ȱInventory ȱof ȱHistoric ȱResources. ȱState ȱof ȱCalifornia ȱDepartment ȱof ȱParks ȱand ȱ Recreation, ȱSacramento. ȱ ȱ California ȱOffice ȱof ȱHi storic ȱPreservationȱ(CA ȬOHP) ȱ ȱ 1988 ȱ Five ȱViews: ȱAn ȱEthnic ȱHistoric ȱSite ȱSurvey ȱfor ȱCalifornia. ȱState ȱof ȱCalifornia ȱDepartment ȱof ȱParks ȱ and ȱRecreation, ȱSacramento. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1990 ȱ California ȱHistorical ȱLandmarks. ȱState ȱof ȱCalifornia ȱDepartment ȱof ȱParks ȱand ȱRecreation, ȱ Sacramento. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1992 ȱ California ȱPoints ȱof ȱHistorical ȱInterest. ȱState ȱof ȱCalifornia ȱDepartment ȱof ȱParks ȱand ȱRecre ation, ȱ Sacramento. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1998 ȱ California ȱRegister ȱof ȱHistorical ȱResources ȱ(CRHR). ȱState ȱOffice ȱof ȱHistoric ȱPreservation, ȱ Sacramento. ȱ ȱ ȱ 2012 ȱ Historic ȱProperties ȱDirectory ȱListing ȱby ȱCity ȱ(through ȱ7ȱMarch ȱ2008). ȱState ȱOffice ȱof ȱHistoric ȱ Preservation, ȱSacramento. ȱ ȱ Culver, ȱDon ȱand ȱRobert ȱGibson ȱ ȱ 1973 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ577. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohn ert ȱPark,ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Curray, ȱJoseph ȱR. ȱ ȱ 1966 ȱ “Geologic ȱStructure ȱon ȱthe ȱContinental ȱMargin, ȱfrom ȱSubbottom ȱProfiles, ȱNorthern ȱand ȱCentral ȱ California”. ȱȱ In ȱGeology ȱof ȱNorthern ȱCalifornia .ȱȱ Edited ȱby ȱEdgar ȱH. ȱBailey, ȱUnited ȱStates ȱ Geological ȱSurvey, ȱSan ȱFrancisco ȱBulletin ȱ190. ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 32 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Fredrickson, ȱDavid ȱ ȱ 1974 ȱ Cultural ȱDiversity ȱin ȱEarly ȱCentral ȱCalifornia: ȱAȱView ȱfrom ȱthe ȱNorth ȱCoast ȱRanges. ȱJournal ȱof ȱ California ȱAnthropology ȱ1(1):41 Ȭ53 .ȱ ȱ ȱ 1994 ȱ Archaeological ȱTaxonomy ȱin ȱCentral ȱCalifornia ȱReconsidered. ȱIn ȱToward ȱaȱNew ȱTaxonomic ȱ Framework ȱfor ȱCentral ȱCalifornia ȱArchaeology: ȱEssays ȱby ȱJames ȱA. ȱBennyhoff ȱand ȱDavid ȱA. ȱFredrickson, ȱ assembled ȱan dȱedited ȱby ȱRicha rd ȱE. ȱHughes, ȱpp. ȱ91 Ȭ103. ȱContributions ȱof ȱthe ȱUniversity ȱof ȱ California ȱArchaeological ȱResearch ȱFacility ȱNo. ȱ52. ȱBerkeley. ȱ ȱ Gibson, ȱRobert ȱO. ȱ ȱ 1973 ȱ Study ȱ8276. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1993 ȱ Results ȱof ȱPhase ȱOne ȱArchaeological ȱSurface ȱSurvey ȱfor ȱthe ȱPacific ȱBell ȱPh one ȱCable ȱProject ȱPacific ȱ Valley ȱAlong ȱHighway ȱOne, ȱSouthern ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCA. ȱSȬ15344. ȱReport ȱprepared ȱfor ȱPacific ȱ Bell, ȱSan ȱLuis ȱObispo, ȱCA. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter ȱof ȱthe ȱCalifornia ȱ Historical ȱResources ȱInformation ȱSystem, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ Golla, ȱVictor ȱ ȱ 2007 ȱ Linguistic ȱPrehistory. ȱIn ȱCalifornia ȱPrehistory ,ȱedited ȱby ȱTerry ȱL. ȱJo nes ȱand ȱKath ryn ȱA. ȱKlar, ȱ pp.99 Ȭ123. ȱAltamira ȱPress, ȱLanham, ȱMaryland. ȱ ȱ Gudde, ȱErwin ȱG. ȱ ȱ 1998 ȱ California ȱPlace ȱNames: ȱThe ȱOrigin ȱand ȱEtymology ȱof ȱCurrent ȱGeographical ȱNames. ȱFourth ȱedition, ȱ revised ȱand ȱenlarged ȱby ȱWilliam ȱBright. ȱUniversity ȱof ȱCalifornia ȱPress, ȱBerkeley ȱand ȱLos ȱ Angeles. ȱ ȱ Hester, ȱThomas ȱRoy ȱ ȱ 1978 ȱ Salinan. ȱIn ȱCalifornia ,ȱedite dȱby ȱR. ȱF. ȱHeizer, ȱpp. ȱ41 4Ȭ425. ȱHandbook ȱof ȱNorth ȱAmerican ȱIndians, ȱ vol. ȱ8, ȱWilliam ȱC. ȱSturtevant, ȱgeneral ȱeditor. ȱSmithsonian ȱInstitution, ȱWashington, ȱD.C. ȱ ȱ Hoover, ȱMildred ȱBrooke, ȱHero ȱEugene ȱRensch, ȱEthel ȱGrace ȱRensch, ȱand ȱWilliam ȱN. ȱAbeloe ȱ ȱ 1990 ȱ Historic ȱSpots ȱin ȱCalifornia. ȱFourth ȱedition, ȱrevised ȱby ȱDouglas ȱE. ȱKy le. ȱStanford ȱUnivers ity ȱ Press, ȱStanford, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ Horne, ȱSteven ȱP. ȱ ȱ 1974 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ577. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Intergovernmental ȱPanel ȱon ȱClimate ȱChange ȱ(IPCC) ȱ ȱ 2013 ȱ Working ȱGroup ȱ1ȱContribution ȱto ȱthe ȱIPCC ȱFifth ȱAssessment ȱReport, ȱClimate ȱChange ȱ2013: ȱThe ȱ Physical ȱScience ȱBasis. ȱȱAv ailable ȱat ȱInterg overnmental ȱPanel ȱon ȱClimate ȱChange ȱ http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#ȱ(accessed ȱ9ȱOctober ȱ2013). ȱ ȱ Jones, ȱTerry ȱL, ȱNathan ȱE. ȱStevens, ȱDeborah ȱA. ȱJones, ȱRichard ȱT. ȱFitzgerald, ȱand ȱMark ȱG. ȱHylkema ȱ ȱ 2007 ȱ “The ȱCentral ȱCoast: ȱAȱMidlatitude ȱMilieu”. ȱȱȱ In ȱCalifornia ȱPrehistory: ȱColonization, ȱCulture, ȱand ȱ Complexity .ȱEdited ȱby ȱTerry ȱL. ȱJones ȱand ȱKatherine ȱA. ȱKlar, ȱAltimira ȱPress, ȱLandham, ȱ Maryland. ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 33 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Kroeber, ȱAlfred ȱL. ȱ ȱ 1925 ȱ Handbook ȱof ȱthe ȱIndians ȱof ȱCalifornia. ȱBureau ȱof ȱAmerican ȱEthnology ȱBulletin ȱ78. ȱSmithsonian ȱ Institution, ȱWashington, ȱD.C. ȱReprinted ȱ1976 ȱby ȱDover, ȱNew ȱYork. ȱ ȱ Küchler, ȱA.W. ȱ ȱ 1977 ȱ The ȱMap ȱof ȱthe ȱNatural ȱVegetation ȱof ȱCalifornia .ȱUniversity ȱof ȱKansas, ȱLawrence. ȱ ȱ Leach ȬPalm, ȱLaura ȱand ȱPat ȱMikkelsen ȱ ȱ 2004 ȱ Site ȱre cord ȱforȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ946/H. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Lopez, ȱJim ȱand ȱJohn ȱBrogan ȱ ȱ 1999a ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ2042. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1999b ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ2041. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwe st ȱInformatio nȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Meighan, ȱClem ȱW. ȱ ȱ 1951 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ283. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Maliarik, ȱAndrea ȱ ȱ 1989 ȱ Pacific ȱUnified ȱSchool ȱDistrict ȱExpansion. ȱSȬ15178. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter ȱ of ȱthe ȱCalifornia ȱHistorical ȱResources ȱInformation ȱSy stem, ȱRohner tȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1992a ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ471. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1992b ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ472. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1994a ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ466. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohn ert ȱPark,ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1994b ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ600. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱȱ ȱ 1996a ȱ Sand ȱDollar ȱDay ȱUse ȱArea ȱWater ȱTank ȱReplacement ȱMonterey ȱRanger ȱDistrict ȱLos ȱPadres ȱ National ȱForest. ȱSȬ18471. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter ȱof ȱthe ȱCa lifornia ȱ Historical ȱRe sources ȱInformation ȱSystem, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1996b ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ468. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 34 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1996c ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ469. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1989 ȱ Cultural ȱResource ȱReport. ȱStudy ȱ14832. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱ Park, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1998 ȱ Report ȱof ȱHeritage ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱBig ȱSur ȱExotic ȱPlant ȱControl ȱMonterey ȱRanger ȱDistrict ȱ Monterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱLos ȱPadre sȱNati onal ȱForest. ȱStudy ȱ21621. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱ Information ȱCenter ȱof ȱthe ȱCalifornia ȱHistorical ȱResources ȱInformation ȱSystem, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 1999 ȱ Report ȱof ȱHeritage ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱAllotment ȱManagement ȱProcess: ȱGorda ȱMonterey ȱRanger ȱ District ȱMonterey ȱCounty ȱLos ȱPadres ȱNational ȱForest. ȱStudy ȱ22462. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱ Information ȱCenter, ȱRohn ert ȱPark,ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ Marmor, ȱJason ȱ ȱ 1989 ȱ Archaeological ȱReconnaissance ȱReport. ȱStudy ȱ22495. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱ Center, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ Mikkelsen, ȱPat ȱ ȱ 1998a ȱ Site ȱRecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1943. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ ȱ 1998b ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ946/H. ȱOn ȱfi le ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ Milliken, ȱRandall ȱ ȱ 2004 ȱ Ethnography ȱof ȱthe ȱSalinan. ȱIn ȱEthnographic ȱOverview ȱof ȱthe ȱLos ȱPadres ȱNational ȱForest ,ȱpp.161 Ȭ 205. ȱPrepared ȱby ȱNorthwest ȱEconomic ȱAssociates ȱand ȱsubmitted ȱto ȱLos ȱPadres ȱNational ȱForest. ȱ ȱ Moratto, ȱMichael ȱ ȱ 1984 ȱ California ȱArchaeology .ȱAcademic ȱPress, ȱInc., ȱOrlan do, ȱFlorida. ȱ ȱ National ȱClima te ȱAssessment ȱand ȱDevelopment ȱAdvisory ȱCommittee ȱ(NCADAC) ȱ ȱ 2013 ȱ National ȱClimate ȱAssessment. ȱDraft ȱreport ȱavailable ȱonline ȱat ȱhttp://review.globalchange.gov ȱ (accessed ȱ9ȱOctober ȱ2013). ȱ ȱ Page, ȱBen ȱ ȱ 1966 ȱ “Geology ȱof ȱthe ȱCoast ȱRanges ȱof ȱCalifornia”. ȱȱ In ȱGeology ȱof ȱNorthern ȱCalifornia .ȱȱ Edited ȱby ȱEdgar ȱ H. ȱBailey, ȱUnited ȱStates ȱGeological ȱSurvey, ȱSan ȱFr ancisco ȱBull etin ȱ190. ȱȱ ȱ Parker, ȱJohn ȱ ȱ 1993 ȱ Archaeological ȱMonitoring ȱof ȱthe ȱPacific ȱBell ȱPhone ȱCable ȱProject ȱPacific ȱValley ȱalong ȱHighway ȱ One ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia. ȱStudy ȱ17549. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱ Rohnert ȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 35 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Rusnak, ȱGene ȱA. ȱ ȱ 1966 ȱ “The ȱContinental ȱMargin ȱof ȱNorthern ȱand ȱCentral ȱCalifornia”. ȱȱ In ȱGeology ȱof ȱNorthern ȱCalifornia .ȱȱ Edited ȱby ȱEdgar ȱH. ȱBailey, ȱUnited ȱStates ȱGeological ȱSurvey, ȱSan ȱFrancisco ȱBulletin ȱ190. ȱȱ ȱ Schoenherr, ȱAllan ȱA. ȱ ȱ 1992 ȱ AȱNatural ȱHistory ȱof ȱCalifornia. ȱUniversity ȱof ȱCalifornia ȱPress, ȱBerkeley ȱand ȱLos ȱAngeles. ȱ ȱ Smith, ȱChuck ȱ ȱ 1981 ȱ First ȱAddend um ȱArchaeological ȱSurvey ȱReport ȱfor ȱthe ȱProposed ȱBridge ȱReplacement ȱProject ȱat ȱ Prewitt ȱCreek, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalif. ȱStudy ȱ3662. ȱOn ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱ Center, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱCalifornia. ȱ ȱ United ȱStates ȱDepartment ȱof ȱAgriculture ȱ(USDA) ȱSoil ȱSurvey ȱ ȱ 2012 ȱ WebȱSoil ȱSurvey. ȱUSDA ȱNatural ȱResources ȱConservation ȱService ȱWebsite ȱat ȱ http://websoilsu rvey.nrc s.usda.gov/app/ ȱ(accessed ȱ29 ȱJune ȱ2012). ȱ ȱ United ȱStates ȱGeological ȱSurvey ȱ(USGS) ȱȱ ȱ 1953 ȱ Cape ȱSan ȱMartin, ȱCalif. ȱ7.5 Ȭminute ȱquadrangle. ȱ ȱ Whitlaw, ȱJan ȱand ȱPaul ȱHamp ȱ ȱ 1980 ȱ Site ȱrecord ȱfor ȱCA ȬMNT Ȭ1025. ȱȱ On ȱfile ȱat ȱthe ȱNorthwest ȱInformation ȱCenter, ȱRohnert ȱPark, ȱ California. ȱ ȱ

AȱCultural ȱResources ȱSurvey ȱof ȱ300 ȱAcres ȱof ȱ ȱ Leon ȱGuerrero ȱ Pacific ȱValley ȱCoastline, ȱMonterey ȱCounty, ȱCalifornia ȱ 36 ȱ 2013 ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ