Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix E – Archaeological Resources Assessment and Paleontological Resources Technical Report Prepared by Cogstone dated March 2016 January 2017 Lyon Estate Subdivision ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE COTO DE CAZO SUBDIVISION EIR PROJECT, COMMUNITY OF COTO DE CAZA, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Mr. Bill H. Lyon 4695 MacArthur Court, 6th Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Authors: Ian Scharlotta, André Simmons, Alyson Caine and Molly Valasik Principal Investigator: Sherri Gust March 2016 Cogstone Project Number: 3434 Type of Study: Archaeological assessment (Phase I including survey) Archaeological Sites: None USGS Quadrangle: Canada Gobernadora 7.5’ Area: 50-57 acres Key Words: Negative survey. Phase I Assessment, Juaneño Acjachemen 1518 West Taft Avenue Branch Offices cogstone.com Orange, CA 92865 San Diego – Riverside – Morro Bay - Oakland Toll free (888) 333-3212 Office (714) 974-8300 Federal Certifications 8(a), SDB, 8(m) WOSB State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE Coto de Caza TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ IV INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY ..................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT PERSONNEL .................................................................................................................... 1 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ............................................................................... 3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 3 STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION ............................................................................... 6 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ........................................................................................................... 7 ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 52 ............................................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 8 PREHISTORIC SETTING .................................................................................................................. 8 PROJECT AREA CULTURES ............................................................................................................ 9 ETHNOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 12 HISTORIC SETTING ..................................................................................................................... 14 RECORD SEARCHES ............................................................................................................... 16 ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY .................................................................................................... 16 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION ........................................................................................... 19 ADDITIONAL SOURCES ............................................................................................................... 19 SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................... 20 SURVEY METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 20 SURVEY RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 21 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 26 REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................................. 27 APPENDIX A: QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 28 APPENDIX B: NATIVE AMERICAN AB 52 CONSULTATION ....................................... 39 APPENDIX C: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION ................................. 46 APPENDIX D: HISTORICAL SOCIETIES........................................................................... 55 Cogstone ii Coto de Caza LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY .................................................................................................................. 2 FIGURE 2. PROJECT AREA ...................................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 3. PROJECT AERIAL .................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 6. MAP OF HISTORICAL LAND GRANTS ........................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 7. RIDGE LINE ALONG THE WESTERN PORTION OF PROJECT AREA, VIEW TO THE WEST ............................ 21 FIGURE 8. OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AREA FROM RIDGE LINE, VIEW TO THE EAST ............................................... 22 FIGURE 9. OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AREA SHOWING DENSITY OF ORANGE GROVES, VIEW TO THE NORTH ............... 22 FIGURE 10. OVERVIEW OF DRY CREEK RUNNING THROUGH ORANGE GROVE, VIEW TO THE NORTH ..................... 23 FIGURE 11. EXAMPLE OF GOOD GROUND VISIBILITY ALONG RIDGE, VIEW TO THE WEST .................................... 23 FIGURE 12. MAN-MADE WATER RETENTION FEATURE, VIEW TO THE EAST ..................................................... 24 FIGURE 13. SURVEY COVERAGE MAP ...................................................................................................... 25 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. CULTURE CHANGE CHRONOLOGY .............................................................................................. 10 TABLE 2. RECORDED SITES WITHIN A MILE RADIUS ..................................................................................... 16 TABLE 3. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES WITHIN A ONE MILE RADIUS ................................................... 17 TABLE 4. ADDITIONAL SOURCES CONSULTED ............................................................................................ 19 TABLE 5. BLM LAND PATENTS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT AREA ..................................................................... 20 Cogstone iii Coto de Caza EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to determine the potential effects on archaeological and historical resources of the proposed Coto de Caza Subdivision EIR Project in the community of Coto de Caza, Orange County, California (Figure 1). This study was requested by the County of Orange to meet their responsibility as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Coto de Caza is a gated residential community that includes golf course and equestrian facility amenities. The project proposes the subdivision of an existing large estate for development of 28 new residential lots on approximately 50-57 acres of land. The existing land is predominantly a citrus orchard. Proposed residential lots will be a minimum of one acre in size. An existing developed estate lot to the north and adjacent to the proposed project area will remain undisturbed. The Native American Heritage Commission indicated that there were no known sacred lands within one half mile of the project. Letters requesting information on any known heritage sites, and containing maps and project information were sent to 7 Native American contacts recommended by the Commission. Three tribal groups had also requested consultation with the County under AB 52 and were sent letters. No responses have been received to date. Cogstone conducted an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the proposed project area on October 8, 2015. Ground visibility was moderate to poor due to vegetation coverage, but varied substantially throughout the Project Area. Ground visibility along the creek is 50% to 25% due to dense vegetation and fallen leaves. Ground visibility within the orange grove is 75% to 100%. Ground visibility along the ridge line is 0% to 50% due to dense vegetation. No cultural resources were observed in the project area during the survey and nothing was collected. If unanticipated resources are discovered during construction, work should halt with 25 ft. of the discovery until it can be evaluated by an Orange County Certified Professional Archaeologist. If prehistoric resources are recovered, courtesy notification to the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachmen Nation who has made similar requests on other projects in the area, should be made by the archaeologist. Cogstone iv Coto de Caza INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study was to determine the potential effects on archaeological and historical resources of the proposed Coto de Caza Subdivision EIR Project in the community of Coto de Caza, Orange County, California (Figure 1). This study was requested by the County of Orange to meet their responsibility as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PROJECT DESCRIPTION