Agenda packet — Seal Beach City Council, December 8, 2025 (part 4 of 5)

the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.” The following wetlands are waters of the State:

1. Natural wetlands;

2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state; and

3. Artificial wetlands that meet any of the following criteria:
a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration;
b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state;
c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or
d. Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed, and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless they also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b):
i. Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal, ii. Settling of sediment,
iii. Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program, iv. Treatment of surface waters,
v. Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering,
vi. Fire suppression,
vii. Industrial processing or cooling,
viii. Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values,
ix. Log storage,
x. Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water, or xi. Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or
xii. Fields flooded for rice growing.

All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3.a, 3.b, or 3.c are not waters of the state. If an aquatic Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
October 11, 2023

Page 8 ends

feature meets the wetland definition, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the wetland is not a water of the state.

C. California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife.

CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” CDFW's definition of “lake” includes “natural lakes or manmade reservoirs.” CDFW also defines a stream as “a body of water that flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators.” It is important to note that the Fish and Game Code defines wildlife to include “all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which they depend for continued viability” (FGC Division 0.5, Chapter 1, section 89.5. Furthermore, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific flow events, seasonal changes in water flow, or presence/absence of vegetation types or communities.

D. Wetlands Defined Under California Coastal Act
In accordance with definitions in the Coastal Act, wetlands are defined as follows:

WETLAND - is defined by Section 30121 of the Coastal Act as lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. The definition of wetland is further detailed by Section 13577 (b)(1) of the California Code of Regulations as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats.

Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
October 11, 2023

Page 9 ends

According to the Coastal Commission, the presence of any one of three wetland indicators (hydrology, hydrophytes, or hydric soils) qualifies an area as a wetland under this definition.

Furthermore, the Coastal Commission establishes the upland limit of a wetland as:
a. the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover
b. the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly nonhydric; or
c. in the case of wetlands without vegetation or soils, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time during years of normal precipitation, and land that is not (14 CCR Section 13577).

The Commission’s determination of the presence of a “One Parameter Wetland” typically follows the methods contained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual7 (Wetland Manual) and more recently, the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (AWS v.2.0).8 It
should be noted, however, that the Army Corps of Engineers and the Wetland Manual requires the presence of all three factors—wetlands hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation—to determine the presence and delineate the boundaries of a federal wetland. While the Commission relies on the federal manuals to establish the presence of any of the three parameters, according to Commission staff typically the presence of a single parameter (e.g., a predominance of wetland vegetation) is sufficient to demonstrate the presence of a wetland and for the Commission to make a presumptive finding for the presence of wetlands.

III. RESULTS
A. Site Description
The proposed solar panel array Project site is located along the northern and eastern boundaries of the Hellman Property as depicted on Exhibit 3. The Project site spans two distinct areas, referred to here as the western field and eastern field, each of which consists of a generally flat 7 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
October 11, 2023

Page 10 ends

field that supports herbaceous vegetation; however, the two areas exhibit differing mixes of herbaceous species.

The western field is characterized by a mosaic of upland grasses and forbs such as ripgut (Bromus diandrus, UPL), wild oats (Avena fatua, UPL), five-hook bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia, FACU), and seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum, FACU), mixed with plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter such as saltgrass (Distichlis spicata, FAC), with limited amounts of alkali heath (Frankenia salina, FACW), and southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis, FACW).

The eastern field supports only upland vegetation and is notably completely lacking saltgrass (Distichlis spicata, FAC), southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis, FACW), and alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis, FACW). The eastern area is dominated by upland grasses and forbs including five-hook bassia (Bassia hyssopifolia, FACU), seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium currassavicum, FACU), wild radish (Raphanus sativus, UPL), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens, UPL) and upland shrubs such as coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis, UPL). Areas of coyote brush include a few individuals of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia, FAC); however, the mulefat is not a dominant species and as such does not function as a wetland indicator in this area.

A portion of the 100-foot buffer adjacent to the eastern field extends into a water quality basin associated with the Heron Pointe residential development [Exhibit 3]. This basin is vegetated with riparian vegetation and may contain areas with wetland hydrology and/or hydric soil indicators. However, because it is a constructed water quality basin, is not part of the Hellman Property, and would not be impacted by the proposed project, it is not addressed in this analysis.

In 2022, a total of 15 soil pits were excavated within the western field as depicted on Exhibit 3, and no hydric soils were detected. Soils uniformly exhibited a chroma of 2.5Y3/3, except for one pit with a chroma of 2.5Y3/2, with no redoximorphic features or other hydric soil indicators.

Similarly, the site did not exhibit any indicators for wetland hydrology.

It should be noted that rainfall in 2022 was below average. The National Weather Service cooperative observer station in Long Beach, CA recorded rainfall at 62 percent of average for the 2021-2022 water year.9 Nevertheless, germination of FACW species such as southern tarplant and alkali weed was observed, indicating that extreme drought conditions were not present.

While the reduced rainfall may have resulted in reduced germination of the southern tarplant seedbank, it was noted that the tarplant generally occurred in the same locations mapped in 2009 and 2010, when rainfall at the Long Beach station was at 73 and 121 percent of average, 9 https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip_2022.php
Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
October 11, 2023

Page 11 ends

respectively.10 Tarplant data collected in 2009 and 2010 showed similar distribution as 2022 indicating suitable conditions for assessing the presence or absence of wetland indicator plants.

On March 6, 2023, a ponded area was observed in the western field that remained ponded for longer than 14 days. However, this ponding was due to a series of high rainfall total storm events, and not indicative of wetland hydrology. As of April 2, 2023, rainfall during the 2022- 2023 water year totaled 20.46 inches, which is 185 percent of normal. February rainfall totaled

2.90 inches and March rainfall totaled 6.91 inches.
11 It is noteworthy that indicators for hydric
soils were not detected within the western field, including the area with ponding, suggesting that sufficient ponding has not occurred over the years that has resulted in the formation of hydric indicators. Additionally, a review of historic aerial photography12 shows oil field work in 2013 that included trenching through the subject area, which modified the local topography, creating a topographic low spot that collects runoff from the surrounding field and adjacent road during significant rain events. Additionally, the Tank Farm Relocation Project, which was constructed in 2010-2011, included authorizations to use excess fill material generated during construction to raise the elevations of the oil field roads, which further contributes runoff to areas of shallow seasonal ponding in the adjacent fields.

In the eastern field, because of the almost complete lack of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter, only one soil pit was excavated to characterize the soil as depicted on Exhibit 3.

B. Corps Jurisdiction
As noted above, the western field supports a mosaic of upland species and species with an indicator status of FAC or FACW. Of the 15 locations where data was collected, six supported a predominance of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter; however, of these six points, three points failed the Prevalence Index (PI) test. Furthermore, the collective PI score for all 15 data collection points was 3.91, which is clearly in the upland range. Combined with the complete lack of hydric soil indicators and complete absence of indicators for wetland hydrology, the western field does not meet the thresholds for wetlands in accordance with the criteria in the AWS v 2.0.

The eastern field, unlike the western field, is completely dominated by upland species, so only one soil pit was excavated. This pit was located in an area of monocultural seaside heliotrope (Heliotropum curassavicum, FACU) that lacked indicators for both hydric soils and wetland 10 2009 data: https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip_2009.php; 2010 data:
https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip_2010.php
11 Data from the LGB Long Beach Airport weather station. Monthly and water year data available at https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip.php and https://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/awipsProducts/RNORR4RSA.php 12 Source: Google Earth Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
October 11, 2023

Page 12 ends

hydrology. Therefore, the eastern area does not meet the thresholds for wetlands in accordance with the criteria in the AWS v 2.0.

B. Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction
Based on the determination for Corps jurisdiction stated above, the Project site does not support wetlands in accordance with the State Board Wetland Definition and Procedures defined in Section II.B above.

C. CDFW Jurisdiction
The Project site does not contain any aquatic features including wetlands, streams, lakes, or riparian habitat that would be subject to the Notification requirements pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.

D. Coastal Act Wetlands
Western Field
Vegetation
As noted above for Corps wetlands, the western field supports a mosaic of upland species and species with an indicator status of FAC or FACW. The most common species with an indicator of FAC or wetter was salt grass (Distichlis spicata, FAC), which was common in substantial portions of the site. Saltgrass is a well-documented phreatophyte that exhibits the ability to reach ground water or moist soils at 11 feet below ground surface and as such is not a reliable indicator of wetland conditions (saturation in the upper 12 inches), especially in the absence of any indicators for wetland hydrology and hydric soils.

Of the 15 locations in the western field where data was collected, six supported a predominance of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter. Of these six locations, in five instances, saltgrass was one of the dominant species, and three locations failed the Prevalence Index (PI) test. It is notable that the collective PI for all 15 data collection points in the western field scored

3.91, which is clearly in the upland range. A collective PI of 3.91 is well above the threshold for the presence of a hydrophytic plant community. Ralph Tiner addresses the problem of basing any wetland determination on Facultative (FAC) vegetation alone and the importance of using a tool with more accurate measurement capabilities (i.e., the Prevalence Index):

A plant community with a weighted average index (prevalence index) of 3.0 (±0.5) therefore is equivalent to a FAC species that occurs equally in wetlands Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
October 11, 2023

Page 13 ends

and non-wetlands. Such communities (2.5 through 3.5) are inconclusive regarding their wetland status as assessed by vegetation analysis alone; in other words, other features [hydrology and soils] must be examined to determine whether they are wetland or not.13
In addition, the Arid West Supplement has a note regarding the presence of phreatophytes that is relevant to this site. As noted, saltgrass is a well-documented phreatophyte with a root structure that can reach up to 11 feet below the surface to reach the groundwater table or moist soil conditions. On page 91, the Arid West Supplement cautions the reader regarding riparian species that have similarly deep roots:

Examples of species that occur in these situations include cottonwoods (e.g., Populus deltoides, P. fremontii) and tree-forming willows (e.g., Salix gooddingii, S. laevigata). These areas may have a high frequency of phreatophytic species that, when mature, are able to exploit groundwater that is too deep to support wetlands.

In such situations, there may be a hydrophytic overstory and a non- hydrophytic understory. If the soils are Entisols lacking hydric soil features and/or wetland hydrology is problematic, more emphasis should be placed on the understory, which may be more indicative of current wetland or non-wetland conditions.14 Functionally, the saltgrass behaves like the riparian trees noted in the excerpt from the Arid West Supplement. Given the predominance of upland grasses such as Brome species it is reasonable to assume that the saltgrass is not functioning as a wetland indicator, which is consistent with the lack of hydric soils and apparent lack of hydrology.

Hydrology
The ponded area depicted on Exhibit 5 ponded for greater than 14 days as described above, due to well above average rainfall. In 2022, no primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology were detected at any of the 15 data points sampled in the western field.

It should also be noted that regular plowing or disking of the soil, as has been typical for the western portion of the site for decades, impacts soil characteristics. Specifically, it is well documented in the scientific literature that plowing or disking eliminates the soil pores that occur in undisturbed soils. Elimination of the soil pores alters the drainage characteristics of the soil 13 Tiner, Ralph W. 1999. Wetland Indicators: A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation, Classification, and Mapping. Lewis Publishers, New York, pp. 111-113. 14 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, p 91.

Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
October 11, 2023

Page 14 ends

such that plowed soils tend to pond water much more readily and hold water at the surface than do unplowed soils. 15,16 Because the disking prevents water from moving through the soil profile, it would also preclude saturation within the soil column retarding or preventing formation of hydric soil indicators. Thus, the ponding observed in the western field occurs for longer durations that would occur should such disking not be implemented for weed control as required by the Orange County Fire Authority.

Soils
As discussed above, no hydric soils were detected in the 15 soil pits excavated in the western field. Soils uniformly exhibited a chroma of 2.5Y3/3, except for one pit with a chroma of

2.5Y3/2, with no redoximorphic features or other hydric soil indicators.

Given the complete lack of hydric soil indicators, absence of indicators for wetland hydrology that are not associated with ponding due to rainfall totaling 185 percent of normal, and a plant community with a collective prevalence index of 3.91, the western field does not meet the thresholds for Coastal Act wetlands in accordance with the criteria established in the AWS v 2.0.

Eastern Field
In the eastern field, data was collected at only one point due to the lack of wetland indicator plant species. The one soil pit excavated lacked any indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology, and was dominated by seaside heliotrope (Heliotropium currassavicum, FACU). Together with the upland plant community, the overall lack of indicators for wetland hydrology and hydric soils across the eastern field indicate that it does not meet the thresholds for Coastal Act wetlands in accordance with the criteria established in the AWS v 2.0.

E. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory As noted in the methodology section, the National Wetland Inventory “Wetland Mapper” categorizes much of the western field and the western portion of the eastern field as wetland with the classification code PEM1Ax. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service includes the following on the National Wetland Inventory website regarding Wetlands Data Limitations, Exclusions and Precautions
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the 15 https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/encyclopedia/frequent-tillage-and-its-impact-soil-quality 16 https://extension.umn.edu/soil-management-and-health/soil-compaction Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
October 11, 2023

Page 15 ends

analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery and/or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Most of the western area and the western portion of the eastern field are mapped on the Wetland Mapper as follows.
a) Classification code: PEM1Ax [Excerpted from Wetland Mapper]17 System Palustrine (P): The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to oceanderived salts is below 0.5 ppt. It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with all of the following four characteristics: (1) area less than 8 ha (20 acres); (2) active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; (3) water depth in the deepest part of basin less than 2.5 m (8.2 ft) at low water; and (4) salinity due to ocean-derived salts less than 0.5 ppt.

Class Emergent (EM): Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants.

Subclass Persistent (1): Dominated by species that normally remain standing at least until the beginning of the next growing season. This subclass is found only in the Estuarine and Palustrine systems.
17 https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
October 11, 2023

Page 16 ends

Water Regime Temporary Flooded (A): Surface water is present for brief periods (from a few days to a few weeks) during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below the ground surface for most of the season.

Special Modifier Excavated (x): This Modifier is used to identify wetland basins or channels that were excavated by humans.

The Wetlands Mapper assessment is not accurate, as shown by the on-the-ground assessment recommended by the Limitations, Exclusions, and Precautions for the tool. As noted above, neither the western field nor the eastern field contain wetlands; only a few limited areas exhibit a predominance of wetland indictor plants with an indictor status of FAC or wetter, and these areas lack wetland hydrology and hydric soils. Overall, the western field is dominated by herbaceous upland vegetation mixed with wetland indicator species, and the eastern field supports only upland vegetation while lacking wetland hydrology and hydric soils.

If you have any questions about this letter report, please contact Tony Bomkamp at (949) 929- 1651 or Erin Trung at [email protected].

Sincerely,
GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES, INC.

Tony Bomkamp
Senior Regulatory Specialist
p:0200-8c.JD
Source: ESRI World Street Map 0 2 4 8
Miles
Regional Map
^_
Exhibit 1
±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY

PROJECT LOCATION
Adapted from USGS Los Alamitos, CA quadrangle
Vicinity Map
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet ±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Exhibit 2

PROJECT LOCATION
X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\DelineationGIS\200-8_JD_SoilPits.mxd 0 62.5 125 250
Feet
±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Jurisdictional Determination Map
Exhibit 3
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: March 15, 2023
1 inch = 125 feet
Key Map
Not to Scale
E 2nd St
San Gabriel River
Pacific Coast Highway
Study Area
Western Field
Eastern Field
Heron Pointe
Water Quality Basin
Non-Wetland Ponded Area
Data Point
X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\SoilsGIS\200-8_Soils.mxd 0 62.5 125 250
Feet
±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Soils Map
Exhibit 4
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: January 4, 2023
1 inch = 125 feet
Key Map
Not to Scale
E 2nd St
San Gabriel River
Pacific Coast Highway
Study Area
Bolsa Silt Loam, Drained
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam,
Drained
123
125
Photograph 1: West-facing view in the eastern field area of the Project site. Note the high level of disturbance. Plant species in this area include alkali heliotrope, five-hook bassia, summer mustard, and perennial pepperweed. August 25, 2022.

Photograph 3: West-facing view of western field portion of the Project. This area is vegetated with the Distichlis spicata-annual grasses association with a few small patches of alkali heath (Frankenia salina). There is no wetland hydrology or hydric soils, and the overall prevalence index of the western field is >3. July 29, 2022.

Exhibit 5
– Page 1

HELLMAN PROPERTY SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Site Photographs
Photograph 2: North-facing view of the eastern field portion of the Project site. Data Point #16 is located in the large patch of alkali heliotrope (Heliotropium currasavicum). in the center of the photo. August 25, 2022.

Photograph 4. View of Cressa truxillensis area in the northwest portion of the western field. This area will not be impacted by the proposed Project and is almost entirely outside of the 100-foot buffer.. August 25, 2022 :

X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\NWI_GIS\200-8_NWI.mxd 0 62.5 125 250
Feet
±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
National Wetland Inventory Map
Exhibit 6
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: January 5, 2023
1 inch = 125 feet
Key Map
Not to Scale
E 2nd St
San Gabriel River
Pacific Coast Highway
Study Area
Freshwater
Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Pond
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-1
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Distichlis spicata 50 Y FAC
Bassia hyssopifolia 5 N FACU
Centromadia parryi australis 1 N FACW
34 1
1 100
1 2
50 150
5 20
56 172

3.07 ✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1
Loc2 Texture Remarks

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

DP-1
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-2
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Distichlis spicata 20 Y FAC
Centromadia parryi australis 10 N FACW
30 70 0
1 1
100
10 20
20 60
30 80

2.67 ✔
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-2
0-12 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-3
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Distichlis spicata 30 Y FAC
Bassia hyssopifolia 2 N FACU
30 70 0
1 1
100
30 90
2 8
32 98

3.06 ✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-3
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-4
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Cressa truxillensis 25 Y FACW
25 75 0
1 1
100
25 50
25 50

2.0 ✔
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-4
0-12 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-5
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Bromus diandrus 60 Y UPL
Bassia hyssopifolia 3 N FACU
63 37 0
0 1
0 3 12
60 300
63 312

4.95 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-5
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-6
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Bromus diandrus 40 Y UPL
Distichlis spicata 40 Y FAC
80 20 0
1 2
50 40 120
40 200
80 320

4.0 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-6
0-14 2.5Y 3/2 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-7
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Bromus diandrus 20 Y UPL
Distichlis spicata 45 Y FAC
65 35 0
1 2
50 45 135
20 100
65 235

3.61 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-7
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-8
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Bromus diandrus 50 Y UPL
Distichlis spicata 2 N FAC
Frankenia salina 5 N FACW
65 35 0
0 1
0 5 10
2 6
50 250
57 266

4.67 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-8
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-9
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Bromus diandrus 30 Y UPL
Bassia hyssopifolia 20 Y FACU
Hordeum marinum gussoneanum 15 Y FAC
65 35 0
1 3
33 15 45
20 80
30 150
65 275

4.23 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-9
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-10
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Bromus diandrus 40 Y UPL
Avena fatua 10 N UPL
Frankenia salina 3 N FACW
Distichlis spicata 2 N FAC
55 45 0
0 1
0 3 6
2 6
50 250
55 262

4.76 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-10
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-11
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Bromus diandrus 20 Y UPL
Distichlis spicata 10 Y FAC
Frankenia salina 10 Y FACW
40 60 0
2 3
67 10 20
10 30
20 100
40 150

3.75 ✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-11
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-12
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Bromus diandrus 40 Y UPL
Distichlis spicata 10 N FAC
Frankenia salina 3 N FACW
53 47 0
0 1
0 3 6
10 30
40 200
53 236

4.45 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-12
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-13
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Raphanus sativus 90 N UPL
90 10 0
0 1
0 90 450
90 450

5.0 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-13
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-14
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Festuca perenne 10 N FAC
Distichlis spicata 40 Y FAC
Frankenia salina 40 Y FACW
90 10 0
2 2
100
40 80
50 150
90 230

2.56 ✔
✔
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-14
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 08-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-15
T Bomkamp/E Trung Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Heliotropium currasavicum 30 Y FACU
Bassia hyssopifolium 10 Y FACU
Centromadia parryi australis 2 N FACW
42 58 0
0 2
0 2 4
40 160
42 164

3.90 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-15
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Hellman Ranch Orange 10-25-22
Hellman Properties LLC CA DP-16
E Trung/B Gale Unsectioned, T4S, R12W
Flat None <2%
LRR C 33.754663 -118.090589 NAD 83
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam NA
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Heliotropium curassavicum 50 Y FACU
50 50 0
0 1
0 50 200
50 200
4 ✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:

DP-16
0-14 2.5Y 3/3 100 None 0.0 NA NA SCL No Redox or other indicators None
NA
No soil color assessed. Soil is mixed fill material with broken concrete pieces and small rocks. No hydric soil indicators.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
No hydrology indicators. Review of historic aerials shows no evidence of ponding or saturation during wetter than normal years.

SOUTHERN TARPLANT

MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN
FOR

HELLMAN PROPERTY SOLAR PANEL ARRAY

LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH,

ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:

Hellman Properties LLC
P.O. Box 2398
Seal Beach, California 90740
Contact: Devon Shea
Phone: (562) 431-6022 ext. 101
Prepared By:

Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.
1940 E. Deere Avenue, Suite 250
Santa Ana, California 92705
Phone: (949) 837-0404
Contacts: Tony Bomkamp, Erin Trung
October 12, 2023
ii

INFORMATION SUMMARY
A. Restoration Plan Date: October 12, 2023
B. Report Title: Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for Hellman Property Solar Panel Array
C. Project Site
Location: Seal Beach, Orange County
D. Owner/Applicant: Hellman Properties LLC
Devon ShayBusiness Manager
P.O. Box 2398
Seal Beach, California 90740
Phone: (562) 431-6022 ext. 101
Email: [email protected]
E. Principal
Investigator: Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.
1940 E. Deere Avenue, Suite 250
Santa Ana, California 92705
Phone: (949) 837-0404
Report Preparer: Erin Trung
F. Individuals Conducting Fieldwork: Tony Bomkamp, Erin Trung, Brittany Gale, David Moskovitz
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background and Scope of Work ...................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Description........................................................................................................... 1

2.0 METHODOLOGY FOR RARE PLANT SURVEYS..........................................................2

2.1 Botanical Resources......................................................................................................... 3

3.0 SPECIES SUBJECT TO IMPACTS AND MITIGATION..................................................4

3.1 Southern Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis)................................................... 4

3.1 Impacts to Southern Tarplant ........................................................................................... 5

4.0 HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITRING PLAN.......................................................5

4.1 Existing Conditions for Project Area Occupied by Southern Tarplant............................ 6

4.2 Existing Conditions for Area Subject Southern Tarplant Translocation.......................... 6

4.3 Seed Collection from Donor/Impact Population.............................................................. 6

4.4 Preparation of Translocation Site..................................................................................... 7

4.5 Plant Palette for Translocation Site.................................................................................. 7

4.6 Broadcasting Seed at Translocation Site.......................................................................... 7

4.7 Five-Year Maintenance Program ..................................................................................... 8

4.8 Five-Year Monitoring Program........................................................................................ 8

4.8 Annual Monitoring Reports ........................................................................................... 11

5.0 COMPLETION OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION ...................................................11

5.1 Notification of Completion ............................................................................................ 11

5.2 Final Performance Standards Resolution ....................................................................... 11

6.0 CONTINGENCY MEASURES .........................................................................................12

6.1 Initiating Procedures ...................................................................................................... 12

6.2 Alternative Locations for Contingency Mitigation ........................................................ 12

6.3 Funding Mechanism....................................................................................................... 12

6.4 Responsible Parties ........................................................................................................ 13

7.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ASSOCIATED FUNDING.....................13

7.1 Monitoring Tasks........................................................................................................... 13

7.2 Funding and Prioritizing Tasks...................................................................................... 14

7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................15 iv
TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of Focused Botanical Surveys for the Project Site........................................2 Table 4.2: Plant Palette for Translocation Area..............................................................................7

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Map
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 Site Plan
Exhibit 4 Special-Status Plants Map
Exhibit 5 Vegetation Map
Exhibit 6 Site Photographs
Exhibit 7 Soils Map
Exhibit 8 Special-Status Plants Impact Map
Exhibit 9 Southern Tarplant Translocation Area
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Scope of Work
This document provides the results of focused biological surveys for southern tarplant (Centromedia parryi ssp. australis), quantifies potential impacts, and sets forth proposed mitigation for impacts associated with the approximately 4.57-acre Solar Panel Array project (the Project) located in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California. This Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) identifies and evaluates impacts and proposed mitigation to southern tarplant in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and State regulations such as the California Coastal Act (CCA) and the California Fish and Game Code.

The scope of this plan includes a discussion of existing conditions for the approximately 4.57- acre Project site that is contained with a larger 12.46-acre Study Area. All methods employed regarding the focused southern tarplant surveys, an analysis of impacts to southern tarplant and proposed methods for reestablishment of southern tarplant on the Hellman Property are addressed in more detail below.

1.2 Project Location
The Project site covers approximately 4.57 acres in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California [Exhibit 1 – Regional Map] and is located within Sections 11 and 12 of Township 5 South, Range 12 West of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map Los Alamitos, California [Exhibit 2 – Vicinity Map]. The Project site is located on the Hellman Property, which is an active oil field with a network of earthen roads, active oil wells, oil and gas storage tanks, and associated infrastructure. The Project site is located in the northeastern portion of the Hellman Property and is bordered by the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin to the north, a water quality basin associated with the Heron Pointe residential development to the east, and active oil fields to the south and west. A portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, which was formerly part of the Hellman Property, is located to the south and west beyond the active oil field.

1.3 Project Description
The proposed project consists of the installation of a 1.5MW fixed-tilt ground mounted solar photovoltaic system. This system will interconnect with the Hellman Property's electrical infrastructure and operate in parallel with the utility grid to provide sustainable clean energy in support of the facilities operations. The system features three arrays with a total of 56 low profile table structures supported by piles with concrete foundations.

For this report, the term “Project site” is defined as that area proposed for direct impact by the proposed Project and totals 4.57 acres [Exhibit 3]. The 4.57-acre Project site includes a 2.66-acre permanent impact area and a 1.91-acre temporary impact area consisting of staging and temporary work areas. The term “Study Area” is defined as all portions of the Project site, a 100- foot buffer beyond the Project site that was included in the analysis in accordance with the 2 requirements of the Coastal Act and the Seal Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP), and additional areas beyond the 100-foot buffer that support sensitive biological resources [Exhibit 3]. The Study Area totals 12.46 acres.

It should be noted that an access road for and a portion of the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin are located within the 100-foot buffer as depicted by Exhibit 3; however, the biological resources in these areas were not mapped or surveyed for this analysis, and these areas are not included in the Study Area.

2.0 METHODOLOGY FOR RARE PLANT SURVEYS
To adequately identify special-status plants in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) assembled biological data consisting of the following components:
• Performance of vegetation mapping for the Project site • Evaluation of Soil Surveys for the Project site
• Review of previous special-status plant survey data for the Project site • Performance of habitat assessments and site-specific biological surveys to evaluate the potential presence/absence of special-status plants in accordance with the requirements of CEQA
• Performance of focused surveys for special-status plants.

The focus of the special-status plant surveys was determined through initial site reconnaissance, review of previous special-status plant survey data, a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, CDFW 2022), CNPS 9th edition online inventory (CNPS 2022), Natural Resource Conservation Service soil data (NRCS 2022), other pertinent literature, knowledge of the region, and GLA’s extensive knowledge of the Hellman Property. Site-specific general surveys within the Project site and the surrounding buffer area were conducted on foot in the proposed development areas for special-status plant species. Table 2-1 provides a summary list of survey dates, survey types and personnel.

Table 2-1. Summary of Focused Botanical Surveys for the Project Site Survey Type Survey Dates Biologist(s)
Vegetation Mapping July 29, August 4, August
25, October 25 2022

TB, ET, BG
Focused Botanical Surveys July 29 and August 4, 2022
February 17 and March 7,
2023

TB, ET, DM
TB = Tony Bomkamp, ET = Erin Trung, BG = Brittany Gale, DM = David Moskovitz 3 2.1 Botanical Resources
A site-specific survey program was designed to accurately document the botanical resources within the Project site, and consisted of five components: (1) a literature search; (2) preparation of a list of target special-status plant species and sensitive vegetation communities that could occur within the Project site; (3) general field reconnaissance survey(s); (4) vegetation mapping according to the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations; and (5) habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status plants. As will be discussed below, two special-status plants were detected in the Study Area including southern tarplant and Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri), both of which had been documented in the Study Area during past surveys by GLA [Exhibit 4 – Special Status Plants Map]. The proposed project fully avoids and provides a buffer for the Coulter’s goldfields ranging from approximately 36 to 73 feet.

2.1.1 Literature Search
Prior to conducting fieldwork, pertinent literature on the flora of the region was examined. A thorough archival review was conducted using available literature and other historical records.

These resources included the following:
• California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v-9.5, CNPS 2023) • CNDDB for the Los Alamitos, California USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and surrounding six quadrangles (CDFW 2022)
The literature review also included biological studies previously conducted for the Hellman Property and adjacent Los Cerritos Wetlands:
• Biological Technical Report, Hellman Ranch Tank Farm Relocation Project (GLA 2006) • Biological Technical Report for Proposed Hellman Gas Plant Project (GLA 2018) • Los Cerritos Wetlands Habitat Assessment Report: Habitat Types & Special Status Species (Tidal Influence 2012)

2.1.2 Vegetation Mapping
Vegetation communities within the Project site were mapped according to the “Membership Rules” of the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (or California Natural Communities List). The list is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition or MCVII, which is the California expression of the National Vegetation Classification. Where necessary, deviations were made when areas did not fit into exact vegetation descriptions (membership rules). Non-conforming vegetation alliances or cover types were named based on the dominant plant species present. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 100-scale (1″=100′) aerial photograph as depicted on Exhibit 5.
4 2.1.3 Special-Status Plant Species and Habitats Evaluated for the Project Site Based on the information compiled from the literature search, vegetation profiles and a list of target sensitive plant species and habitats that could occur within the Project site were developed and incorporated into a mapping and survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) characterize the vegetation associations and land use; (2) prepare a detailed floristic compendium; (3) identify the potential for any special-status plants that may occur within the Project site; and (4) prepare a map showing the distribution of any sensitive botanical resources associated with the Project site, if applicable.

2.1.4 Botanical Surveys
GLA biologists Tony Bomkamp and Erin Trung visited the site on July 29, and August 4, 2022, and Erin Trung and David Moskovitz visited the site on February 17 and March 6, 2023, to conduct general and focused plant survey(s). Southern tarplant was censused and mapped during 2022 surveys, and Coulter’s goldfields was mapped during 2023 surveys. Survey(s) were conducted in accordance with accepted botanical survey guidelines (Nelson 1984, USFWS 2000, CNPS 2001, CDFW 2018). As applicable, survey(s) were conducted at appropriate times based on precipitation and flowering periods. An aerial photograph, a soil map, and/or a topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive and uncommon taxa or communities within the Project site. Survey(s) were conducted by following meandering transects within target areas of suitable habitat. All plant species encountered during the field survey(s) were identified and recorded following the abovereferenced guidelines. Scientific nomenclature and common names used in this report follow Baldwin et al. (2012) and Munz (1974).

3.0 SPECIES SUBJECT TO IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

3.1 Southern Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) Southern tarplant has a California Rare Plant Rank (“CRPR”) of 1B.1, indicating that it is rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, and is seriously endangered in California.

This species is an annual herb in the sunflower family that blooms from May to November. It is adapted to and thrives in disturbed areas, and it also occurs in alkali playas, alkali grasslands, and along the margins of salt marshes. This species is very distinctive and flowers as early as June and sometimes into October or November.

Southern tarplant is typically associated with a variety of mesic (not typically wetland) habitats including alkali grasslands, alkali meadows, and the fringes of alkali marshes as well as the fringes of coastal salt marshes. Native habitats for this species support a suite of grasses, sedges, and rushes that are adapted to slightly to moderately alkaline soils (though GLA has documented this species occurring occasionally in neutral and even slightly acidic soils). Southern tarplant can tolerate, and even thrive, with moderate levels of disturbance including regular mowing or disking if the mowing and/or disking occur in the late fall or early winter after seed set. The ability to tolerate disturbance allows this species to persist in highly disturbed or degraded 5 landscapes such as some of the most highly disturbed areas on the Project site, which is subject to disking or mowing of weeds to reduce fuel loads as required by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), because, as noted, the Hellman Property is an active oil field. This ability to tolerate such disturbance also makes translocation of this species very easy, as long as receptor sites have suitable soils and competition from weedy competitors is limited.

Because this species has declined across its range, mitigation for impacts is appropriate; however, determination of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as defined by the California Coastal Act for areas occupied by this species is not always warranted due to the ability of this species to colonize highly disturbed areas as shown in Photographs 1 and 2 of Exhibit 6. Southern tarplant can colonize areas that are highly disturbed and generally would not support native vegetation, such as areas with a gravel substrate and cracks in concrete. It can also occur with non-native halophytes such as small-flowered iceplant. Such areas are themselves in need of rehabilitation in order to reestablish native habitat that could include southern tarplant as a component. As such, determination of ESHA for areas occupied by this species should consider the specific habitat types that the species is associated with A population of approximately 1,072 individuals was detected during focused surveys in the Study Area in 2022, of which 457 were in established fuel modification zones for oil field operations, and 615 were not within fuel modification zones. Exhibit 4 depicts the locations of southern tarplant within the Study Area, and also includes the locations of southern tarplant observed in 2009 and 2010.

3.1 Impacts to Southern Tarplant
The project would result in direct impacts to southern tarplant due to installation of the solar array. Of the 615 tarplant in the Study Area not located in established fuel modification zones, a total of 83 southern tarplant covering 0.03 acre would be impacted, of which 57 are located in the temporary impact area and 29 in the permanent impact area.

4.0 HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITRING PLAN
This section sets forth the components of the southern tarplant Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) including:
• Existing conditions within Project Site area occupied by southern tarplant • Existing conditions within proposed translocation site • Seed collection from donor/impact population
• Preparation of translocation site
• Plant palette for translocation site
• Broadcasting seed at translocation site
• Five-year maintenance program
• Five-year monitoring program
• Five-year reporting requirements
6 4.1 Existing Conditions for Project Area Occupied by Southern Tarplant The Study Area is located within the Hellman Property oil field and consists of disturbed land with existing oil wells, and pipes, and associated infrastructure, internal roads, and open fields.

The vegetation communities are generally disturbed with a substantial component of non-native species. The topography is flat, with elevations ranging from 2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the southeast portion of the Study Area to 8 feet AMSL in the northwest portion of the study area. Soils within the Study Area consist of Bolsa silty clay loam [Exhibit 7 – Soil Map]. The Project site consists of adjacent flat fields separated by an oil access road.

The westerly portion of the field that is occupied by the southern tarplant consists entirely of Distichlis spicata herbaceous alliance (salt grass flats) Distichlis spicata – annual grasses (41.200.13). The area occupied by southern tarplant is dominated by Distichlis spicata but with a substantial component of annual grasses ranging from 5 to 45 percent relative cover, including ripgut, wild oat, hare barley, and Mediterranean barley. Southern tarplant is also present as individuals, small clumps and larger clumps. This area also has a few small, isolated patches of alkali heath that are not large enough to comprise a separate mapping unit. The membership rules for this alliance require that Distichlis spicata have greater than 50 percent relative cover in the herbaceous layer, and higher cover than any other grass species. The Distichlis spicata – annual grasses association has no state rarity rank; however, the alliance has an S4 rarity rank.

4.2 Existing Conditions for Area Subject Southern Tarplant Translocation A candidate tarplant translocation mitigation area within the Hellman Property is shown on Exhibit 9, and totals approximately 1.27 acre. The candidate southern tarplant translocation area has flat topography similar to the impact area and supports a mix of non-native grasses and forbs including black mustard (Brassica nigra), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and non-native grasses such as rip gut, slender wild oats, and hare barley.

The area occupied by southern tarplant to be impacted by the Project totals 0.03 acre, and therefore a portion of the candidate translocation area covering at least 0.12-acre (4:1 mitigation to impact ratio) will ultimately be identified as the mitigation site depending on site-specific conditions. Prior to selection of the final translocation area, additional site-specific analysis of soils will be conducted to determine the most suitable area for tarplant translocation.

4.3 Seed Collection from Donor/Impact Population
As noted, southern tarplant is an annual plant that tolerates disturbance including mowing and disking which help to distribute seed within such disturbed habitats. In most years, this species begins flowing in June or July and can flower into October or November with seed set typically occurring between August and late November. Seed would be collected from all plants to be impacted, which would require several seed collection visits as seed ripens. To collect seed, flowering heads with ripe seed are cut with pruning shears and collected in paper bags or cardboard file boxes. It is not necessary to clean or otherwise process the collected material.

The collected seed heads would be stored in a cool, dry environment until introduction to the translocation site.
7 To ensure that all available seed is collected, a qualified biologist will monitor the existing localities of southern tarplant to determine when the seeds are ready for collection. The seed will be collected by personnel with experience in the collection of seeds. As noted, by removing all seed heads from plants to be impacted by hand using pruning shears, all available seed would be collected for distribution at the mitigation site. Additional seed collection for subsequent years from the extant population would be limited to no more than five percent of the existing population in any single year.

4.4 Preparation of Translocation Site
As noted, the translocation site is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs. To prepare the site for introduction of tarplant, the non-native weeds will be removed through a grow-and-kill program that will require two to three grow-and-kill cycles. The grow and kill cycles will depend on natural rainfall and/or irrigation based on the amount and timing of the rainfall. The grow-and-kill cycle would begin with winter rains and extend into spring and early summer as determined necessary by the project biologist. If determined necessary, the grow-and-kill programs could be extended into a second season based on the judgment of the Project Biologist.

As discussed above, additional soils analysis will be conducted prior to selection of the final mitigation site. Based on the soils map for the site, the translocation site and the impact site exhibit similar soils. Southern tarplant prefers heavier soils with a clay component, and as such, if the top layer of soil is determined to be unsuitable, then site preparation will include excavation of the top layer of soil to expose the underlying soils which would be suitable.

4.5 Plant Palette for Translocation Site
In addition to the southern tarplant, other native plants would be incorporated into the translocation site to enhance the habitat value and to reduce weed cover over the long term.

Table 4-2: Plant Palette for Translocation Area
Species Latin Name Species Common Name Seed Amount/Acre Malvella leprosa Alkali sida 4 lbs/acre
Cressa truxillensis Alkali weed 4 lbs/acre
Centromadia parryi ssp.
australis
Southern tarplant Hand-Collected Seed

4.6 Broadcasting Seed at Translocation Site
Seed introduction will occur before the rainy season between October 1 and October 15. Should seed collection occur past October 15, such seed would be distributed at the time of collection.

The southern tarplant seed heads would be distributed by hand broadcasting collected plant material across the translocation site and raking in using a hand rake. Additional seed would be hand broadcast across the site and raked in along with the southern tarplant seed. 8 4.7 Five-Year Maintenance Program
Maintenance Activities
The purpose of this program is to ensure the success of the mitigation planting. Maintenance will occur over the five-year life of the project. Once reintroduction is completed the habitat restoration specialist will schedule a meeting with key members of the landscape maintenance crew to identify proper maintenance procedures. The following tasks will be performed as general maintenance duties:

Weeding
Because southern tarplant does not emerge until late spring and does not flower until June or July, the potential for removing this species accidentally during weeding is high. Therefore, no weeding will be performed in areas where southern tarplant is introduced until the area is surveyed by the project biologist to determine whether southern tarplant has germinated and emerged in vegetative form. If southern tarplant has emerged, individuals will be flagged and the project biologist will review the site with maintenance crews to identify the southern tarplant to ensure they are not affected during weeding. Weeding will be done by hand and no herbicides will be used within the southern tarplant reintroduction areas once southern tarplant is present.

As noted above, herbicides can be used during the grow-and-kill cycle but will be terminated once seeding of the tarplant and native plant palette occurs. In addition, devices such as weed whips can be used to remove heavy weed infestations in the vicinity of the tarplant under the supervision of the project biologist.

Trash Removal
All debris of human origin will be removed from the mitigation area on a regular basis. The appearance of the mitigation area will be well maintained to deter vandalism and dumping.

Responsible Parties
Hellman Properties will be responsible for financing and carrying out maintenance activities and may assign the maintenance responsibilities to an appropriate contractor but will retain ultimate responsibility for maintenance of the mitigation site.

Schedule
Maintenance visits will be scheduled as necessary to ensure that the mitigation site is maintained free of trash and is not disturbed by other maintenance activities. The maintenance schedule provides for 12 visits for the first year, and six visits per year for the second through fifth years to maintain the site.

4.8 Five-Year Monitoring Program
Performance Criteria
The goal of the mitigation program is to establish southern tarplant within a 0.12-acre portion of the 1.27-acre candidate translocation site, such that the site supports a minimum of 332 individuals (4:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to 83 individuals) during at least two seasons during the five-year monitoring period. In addition, non-native cover within the translocation site will be maintained at less than 25-percent throughout the five-year monitoring period. 9 First-Year Monitoring
Southern tarplant typically flowers between July and October with peak flowering typically occurring in August or September. Monitoring of the translocated population will begin in June and will be conducted every two weeks until peak flowering occurs. When peak flowering occurs, as determined by the project biologist, counts will be obtained for the reintroduced populations.

Success Standard: 1) Reintroduced populations to achieve 332 individuals. 2) Translocation site to exhibit less than 25-percent non-native cover.

If the reintroduced populations do not achieve 332 individuals, additional seed will be collected from the existing populations (not to exceed five percent of donor population) at Hellman Properties and the seed introduced in the mitigation area. A yearly report will be submitted by December 31 to the City of Seal Beach and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that summarizes the performance of the reintroduction program for southern tarplant. In addition, the report will include recommendations for improving the success of the program and will also include potential remedial measures, such as increased maintenance, as potential problems are noted.

Second-Year Monitoring
Monitoring of the translocated population will begin in June and will be conducted every two weeks until peak flowering occurs. When peak flowering occurs, as determined by the project biologist, counts will be obtained for the reintroduced populations.

Success Standard: 1) Reintroduced populations to achieve 332 individuals. 2) Translocation site to exhibit less than 25-percent non-native cover.

Third-Year Monitoring
Monitoring of the translocated population will begin in June and will be conducted every two weeks until peak flowering occurs. When peak flowering occurs, as determined by the project biologist, counts will be obtained for the reintroduced populations.

Success Standard: 1) Reintroduced populations to achieve 332 individuals. 2) Translocation site to exhibit less than 25-percent non-native cover.

If the reintroduced populations do not achieve 332 individuals, additional seed will be collected from the existing populations (not to exceed five percent of donor population) at Hellman Properties and the seed introduced in the mitigation area. A yearly report will be submitted by 10 December 31 to the City of Seal Beach and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that summarizes the performance of the reintroduction program for southern tarplant. In addition, the report will include recommendations for improving the success of the program and will also include potential remedial measures, such as increased maintenance, as potential problems are noted.

Fourth-Year Monitoring
Monitoring of the translocated population will begin in June and will be conducted every two weeks until peak flowering occurs. When peak flowering occurs, as determined by the project biologist, counts will be obtained for the reintroduced populations.

Success Standard: 1) Reintroduced populations to achieve 332 individuals. 2) Translocation site to exhibit less than 25-percent non-native cover.

If the reintroduced populations do not achieve 332 individuals, additional seed will be collected from the existing populations at Hellman Properties and the seed introduced in the mitigation area.

A yearly report will be submitted by December 31 to the City of Seal Beach and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) that summarizes the performance of the reintroduction program for southern tarplant. In addition, the report will include recommendations for improving the success of the program and will also include potential remedial measures, such as increased maintenance, as potential problems are noted.

Fifth-Year Monitoring
Monitoring of the translocated population will begin in June and will be conducted every two weeks until peak flowering occurs. When peak flowering occurs, as determined by the project biologist, counts will be obtained for the reintroduced populations.

Success Standard: 1) Reintroduced populations to achieve 332 individuals. 2) Translocation site to exhibit less than 25-percent non-native cover.

If the reintroduced populations do not achieve 332 individuals, additional seed will be collected from the existing populations at Hellman Properties and the seed introduced in the mitigation area.

If performance standards are not achieved during the five-year monitoring program, Hellman Properties will consult with CDFW to determine whether corrective measures and an extension of the five-year monitoring program will be necessary.
11 4.8 Annual Monitoring Reports
An annual report shall be submitted to the City of Seal Beach and CDFW by January 1 of each year for 5 years after planting. Photos from designated photo stations shall be included.

At the end of each of the five-monitoring period growing seasons, for the duration of the monitoring period, an annual report will be prepared for submittal to the City of Seal Beach and CDFW. The first annual report shall be delivered on January 1st of the year following the first quantitative monitoring. These reports shall include the number of southern tarplant during each of the five monitoring seasons as well as the non-native cover. These reports will assess both attainment of yearly target success criteria and progress toward final success criteria. These reports will also include the following:
• A list of names, titles, and companies of all persons who prepared the content of the annual report and participated in monitoring activities for that year; • A vicinity map indicating location of the mitigation site(s); • A mitigation site map identifying habitat types, transect locations, photo station locations, etc. as appropriate;
• Description and evaluation and any and all of maintenance performed; • Description of additional seeding performed as necessary including location of source population(s) and per
• Copies of all monitoring photographs from designated photo stations; • Copies of all completed field data sheets; and
• An analysis of all qualitative and quantitative monitoring data.

5.0 COMPLETION OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION

5.1 Notification of Completion
The Project Biologist should notify Hellman Properties, the City of Seal Beach, and CDFW in writing when the monitoring period is complete and the City-approved success criteria have been met.

5.2 Final Performance Standards Resolution
If the project meets performance standards at the end of the five-year monitoring period, the translocation be considered a success. If not, the maintenance and monitoring program will be extended one full year at a time, and a specific set of remedial measures approved by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW will be implemented until the standards are met. This process will continue until year-five standards are met or until the City of Seal Beach and CDFW determine that other mitigation measures are appropriate.
12 Should the translocation efforts meet all goals prior to the end of the five-year monitoring period, the City of Seal Beach and CDFW, at their discretion, may terminate the monitoring effort and release the bond. At that time the Applicant/Permittee will be released from further maintenance and monitoring requirements of the mitigation area.

5.3 Agency Confirmation
Following receipt of the final annual monitoring report, the City of Seal Beach and CDFW will contact the permittee as soon as possible to schedule a site visit to confirm the completion of the compensatory mitigation effort and any jurisdictional delineation. The compensatory mitigation will not be considered complete without an onsite inspection by CDFW and written confirmation that approved performance standards have been achieved.

It is therefore critical that agency staff review annual reports on a timely basis and provide comments throughout the maintenance and monitoring program so that any project deficiencies they note can be addressed prior to the expected end of the program.

6.0 CONTINGENCY MEASURES

6.1 Initiating Procedures
If a performance standard is not met at the termination of the mitigation project or if the approved success criteria are not met, the Project Biologist will prepare an analysis of the cause(s) of failure and, if determined necessary by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW propose remedial actions for approval. If the compensatory mitigation site has not met one or more of the performance standards, the permittee's maintenance and monitoring obligations shall continue until the City of Seal Beach and CDFW gives final approval the mitigation obligations have been satisfied. It is therefore incumbent upon the Project Biologist to foresee project deficiencies as part of the monitoring program and take appropriate steps to address the situation.

6.2 Alternative Locations for Contingency Mitigation
Sufficient area for establishment of the mitigation site is available so alternative locations would be unnecessary. Although this plan is expected to be successful, both onsite and off-site alternative locations may be used in the event that revegetation cannot be achieved.

6.3 Funding Mechanism
The Applicant/Permittee will fund planning, implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of any contingency measures that may be required to achieve mitigation goals through an up-front payment to the Contractor. Thereafter, all expenses in implementing this mitigation plan are to be borne by the Contractor.
13 6.4 Responsible Parties
The Applicant/Permittee will be responsible for implementing, maintaining, and monitoring any contingency procedures.

7.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ASSOCIATED FUNDING
Upon completion of and acceptance by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW that the five-year performance standards have been achieved, implementation of a Long-Term Management Plan (LTMP) will begin. With the successful completion of the mitigation and the achievement of the performance standards, it is expected that the tarplant area will require only limited management activities that would include the following:
(1) Ongoing Monitoring,
(2) Ongoing Non-Native Invasive Vegetation Control,
(3) Trash and Debris Removal.

7.1 Monitoring Tasks
A qualified Biological Monitor shall be retained to assist in implementing the LTMP and to monitor the status of the LTMP for tarplant mitigation area. The activities to be conducted by the Biological Monitor are as follows.

Activity: Annual Monitoring. Conduct annual monitoring of the Long Term Management Area to determine what management activities are needed and where to focus those activities.

Activity: Work Planning. Prepare an annual work plan and coordinate with the maintenance contractor(s) to carry out the management activities including the need for non-native species removal, trash and debris removal, or other management activities.

Activity: Data Collection. Document qualitative and quantitative data related to the implementation of management activities.

Activity: Annual Reporting. At the end of the first year, and then every other year, a management report will be prepared by the Biological Monitor and will be submitted to the City of Seal Beach and CDFW. These reports will include:
(a) A description of the maintenance activities conducted during that calendar year;
(b) The date of and location where the management activities were undertaken; (c) Information regarding weed eradication/abatement, including the amount removed and treated, frequency and timing of removal and treatment, and disposal specifics; and
14 (d) Photos from designated photo stations.

7.2 Funding and Prioritizing Tasks

7.1.1. Funding
Prior to impacts associated with the project, the amount of a non-wasting endowment will be determined that will be necessary to fund the annual cost of carrying out the LTMP activities described above, if approved by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW. If approved by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW, the endowment will fund all management and monitoring activities associated with the LTMP. No further monetary obligations will be required of the Manager or any future long-term manager.

The endowment shall be approved by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW or designee. If a designee is approved to hold the endowment, the Agencies will require the entity to enter into an agreement that contains terms relating to management of the endowment, the periodic auditing and reporting of expenditures, earnings and other pertinent information, and provisions for the transfer of the endowment and unspent earnings to the Agencies, or a successor owner/manager under certain conditions. If approved by the Agencies, the Manager will transfer the total nonwasting endowment fund to the designee approved by the City of Seal Beach and CDFW within one year after commencement of construction.

The endowment will be placed in an interest-bearing security for the sole purpose of carrying out the management activities described above. The Manager will have access to the interest generated by the endowment and will be able to draw on the funds throughout the year to carry out the management activities.

7.1.2. Prioritizing Tasks
The anticipated that the activities to be conducted annually will include monitoring, trash and debris removal, invasive plant control and management reporting. Invasive vegetation removal is the activity that will occur in perpetuity, but because of the dynamic nature of biological systems, is an activity that may not need to occur every single year. Other management activities might be added as part of the adaptive management of the LTMA, but these activities are not anticipated at this time.

Each year the Manager and Biological Monitor will develop a Work Plan that prioritizes the mandatory management activities and other adaptive management activities based on natural resource conditions for that year. How the annual draw on the endowment will be spent will be determined based on this prioritized Work Plan.

Because the management needs will vary from year to year, any unspent interest would be left in the interest-bearing security and could be utilized the following year(s). This adaptive funding mechanism provides the necessary flexibility for the Manager to allocate funds toward those management activities that require attention for that particular year and to plan ahead for implementation of management activities that become necessary in the future. 15 7.0 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012.

The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press. 1,568 pp.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities.

State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022c. California Natural Community List.

California Natural Resources Agency, July 5, 2022.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022d. Natural Communities. Accessed October 10, 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x + 388pp.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Accessed August 2022. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2022. RareFind 5. Records of occurrence for USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps: Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, Long Beach, Anaheim, Whittier, South Gate, and Newport Beach. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State of California Natural Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. Accessed August 2022. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

Glenn Lukos Associates. 2006. Biological Technical Report, Hellman Ranch Tank Farm Relocation Project, Orange County, California. August 2004, Revised March 2006.

Glenn Lukos Associates. 2018. Biological Technical Report for the Proposed Hellman Gas Plant Project, Seal Beach, Orange County. September 2018.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. 1,086 pp.

Nelson, J. 1984. Rare plant survey guidelines. In: Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. J. Smith and R. York (eds.). Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society.
16 National Resources Conservation Service. 2022. Soil Survey Staff, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Accessed August 2022.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.

Sawyer, J.O, T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation.

Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, California. 1,300 pp.

Tidal Influence. 2012. Los Cerritos Wetlands Habitat Assessment Report: Habitat Types and Special Status Species. Submitted March 1, 2012, Revised June 21, 2012.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. Sacramento, CA: U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished memorandum; January 2000. s:0200-8b.Tarplant Restoration Plan tracked
Source: ESRI World Street Map 0 2 4 8
Miles
Regional Map
^_
Exhibit 1
±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY

PROJECT LOCATION
Adapted from USGS Los Alamitos, CA quadrangle
Vicinity Map
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet ±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Exhibit 2

PROJECT LOCATION
X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\200-8_SitePlan.mxd
0 62.5 125 250
Feet
±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Site Plan
Exhibit 3
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: January 4, 2023
1 inch = 125 feet
Key Map
Not to Scale
E 2nd St
San Gabriel River
Pacific Coast Highway
Study Area
Permanent Impacts
Temporary Impacts
100' Buffer of
Permanent Impacts
X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\SpecialStatusSpeciesGIS\200-8_SpecialStatusSpecies_HMMP.mxd 0 62.5 125 250
Feet
±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Special-Status Species Map
Exhibit 4
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: March 28, 2023
1 inch = 125 feet
Key Map
Not to Scale
E 2nd St
San Gabriel River
Pacific Coast Highway
Study Area
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
Existing Fuel Modification Zones
2009 Rare Plants
2010 Rare Plants
2022 Rare Plants
2023 Rare Plants
Coulter's Goldfields Southern Tarplant
Coulter's Goldfields Southern Tarplant
Coulter's Goldfields
Southern Tarplant (1,072)
X:\00 - 0362ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GISV eg etationGIS\200-8_V eg etation.m xd 0 62.5 125 250 Feet±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
V eg etation Map
Exh ibit 5
Coordinate System : State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lam bert Conform al Conic
Datum : NAD 1983201
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: March 28, 2023
1 inch = 125 feet
Key Map
Not to Scale
E 2nd St
San Gabriel River Pacific Coast Highway
Study Area
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Existing
Fuel Modification Zones
Vegetation Type
Alkali h eliotrope Fields
Annual Grasland/
Herbaceous Sem i-Natural Stands
Bach aris pilularis Sh rubland Alliance
Disturbed
Bach aris pilularis Sh rubland Alliance
Bach aris salicifolia Sh rubland Alliance
Basia h ysopifolia Asociation
Castor Bean Stands
Cresa truxillensis –
Distich lis spicata Herbaceous Alliance
Distich lis spicata – Annual Grases
Disturbed/Dev eloped
Malv ella leprosa Fields
Mixed Nativ e and
Non-Nativ e Herbaceous Fields
Mixed Sh rub Sem inatural Stands
Ornam ental
Raph anus sativ us Asociation
Salix asiolepis –
Bach aris salicifolia Sh rubland Alliance
Tree Tobaco Stands
Exhibit 6

HELLMAN PROPERTY SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Site Photographs
Photograph 1: West-facing view of southern tarplant growing on the edge of a road. July 29, 2022.

Photograph 2: Southern tarplant growing in a highly disturbed roadside area. July 29, 2022.

X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\SoilsGIS\200-8_Soils_HMMP.mxd 0 87.5 175 350
Feet
±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Soils Map
Exhibit 7
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: March 29, 2023
1 inch = 175 feet
Key Map
Not to Scale
E 2nd St
San Gabriel River
Pacific Coast Highway
Study Area
Southern Tarplant
Translocation Area
Bolsa Silt Loam, Drained
Bolsa Silty Clay Loam,
Drained
123
125
X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\ImpactsGIS\200-8_SpecialStatusSpecies_Impacts_HMMP.mxd 0 62.5 125 250
Feet
±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Special-Status Species Impacts Map
Exhibit 8
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: March 28, 2023
1 inch = 125 feet
Key Map
Not to Scale
E 2nd St
San Gabriel River
Pacific Coast Highway
Study Area
Permanent Impacts
Temporary Impacts
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
Existing Fuel Modification Zones
2009 Rare Plants
2010 Rare Plants
Coulter's Goldfields Southern Tarplant
Coulter's Goldfields Southern Tarplant
2023 Rare Plants:

Coulter's Goldfields
2022 Rare Plants:

Southern Tarplant (1,072)
X:\00 - 0362 ONLY\0200-08SOLA\GIS\MitigationGIS\0200-08_TarplantTranslocation.mxd 0 25 50 100 Feet ±

HELLMAN PROPERTY

SOLAR PANEL ARRAY
Southern Tarplant Translocation Area
Exhibit 9
Coordinate System: State Plane 6 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: March 28, 2023
1 inch = 50 feet
Key Map
Not to Scale
Study Area
Southern Tarplant Candidate
Translocation Area (1.27 ac.)
San Gabriel River
Appendix G
Cultural Resources Assessment Report
aecom.com
Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx
1/9
AECOM
401 West A Street
Suite 1200
San Diego, CA 92101
aecom.com
April 26, 2023
Ms. Devon Shay
Hellman Properties, LLC
1 Pacific Coast Highway
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Subject: Cultural Resources Assessment Report for a Proposed Solar Array, Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility, Seal Beach, California Dear Ms. Shay,
The following presents a report of the cultural resources assessment conducted by AECOM for the proposed solar array (Project) at the Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility (OGPF) property located in the City of Seal Beach (City), Orange County, California. As discussed below, the proposed Project area has been surveyed or otherwise investigated for cultural resources on at least five different occasions, including exploratory subsurface trenching, and no cultural resources have been identified that would be affected by the proposed solar array installation. Additionally, the Project area is included in a recent cultural resources records search in support of a proposed gas plant just to the southwest, again indicating that no known cultural sites are present that would be affected by the proposed solar array installation.

Because the area of the proposed solar array is completely encompassed by these previous studies, no new field investigations were conducted for the present assessment. This assessment has been completed in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of the CEQA, and the guidelines for preparation of archaeological reports by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP 1990). It also complies with Sections 1.C.1 and 1.C.2 of the Cultural Resources Element of the City of Seal Beach General Plan, which require literature searches and archaeological field surveys prior to development entitlements.

Project Description
The Project area is located in northern Orange County, California, approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and 1.5 miles southwest of Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway) (Figure 1). The Project area is within the existing Hellman Ranch OGPF, which is bounded roughly by the San Gabriel River to the west, residential areas to the north and south, and residential and industrial uses to the east.

Figure 1 I Project Area
2,000 0 2,000 Feet
Scale: 1:24,000 1 in = 2,000 feet
Project Area of Direct Impact (ADI)
Archaeological Site (CA-ORA-851)
Previous Survey Area (York and Willey 2004)
Source: National Geographic Society 2013, Hellman Properties, LLC LEGEND
Staging Yard
Proposed
Solar Arrays
Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
April 26, 2023
aecom.com
Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx
3/9
The Project would consist of the construction of a ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) plant including PV modules, grid-interactive inverters, and racking structures. The plant will consist of 56 solar arrays spaced 8 feet apart and supported by concrete piers set 18 inches below grade. For the purposes of this assessment, the Project area is defined as all areas that would be subject to direct disturbance from installation of the photovoltaic plant, including the use of construction staging areas. The footprint of the areas subject to direct ground disturbance are shown as Areas of Direct Impact (ADI) in Figure 1.

Project Setting
The Hellman property is bordered to the northwest by the channelized San Gabriel River and the Haynes Cooling Channel. Wetlands owned by the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority are south of the Hellman property. Also to the south, at the foot of Landing Hill, is the City-owned Gum Grove Park, while to the east the northern portion of Landing Hill has been developed for residential use.

Natural Environment
At an elevation of approximately three feet above sea level, the Project area is within the area formerly covered by wetlands associated with Alamitos Bay, an extensive tidal estuary at the mouth of the San Gabriel River. Alamitos Bay was one of several large estuaries along the coast of northern Orange County (along with Anaheim Bay, Bolsa Bay, and Newport Bay) that were formed as rising sea levels flooded the coastal drainages during the early Holocene (ca. 8000– 10,000 years before present [B.P.]). Initially, these consisted of open, relatively deep embayments during the rapid sea level rise that occurred before about 6000 B.P. These provided abundant fish and shellfish to prehistoric groups that moved among resource patches along their margins. As sea levels stabilized between about 6000–4000 B.P., silt began to accumulate along the inland edges of the embayments, forming extensive tidal wetlands and mudflats. This appears to be the time that the estuaries reached their maximum productivity of resources important to prehistoric Native Americans. Eventually, the siltation proceeded to the point that shellfish habitat was restricted, limiting their utility as an economic resource for prehistoric populations.

Although in the recent past the Project area was covered by the mud flats and marshes of Alamitos Bay, several thousand years ago some of the Project area may have been dry land.

Before the stabilization of sea levels at mid-Holocene, the surface of Alamitos Bay would have been lower, and low terraces to the north and west of Landing Hill may have been exposed and available for human habitation. As sea levels rose, the margins of the bay would have expanded, eventually covering those areas with alluvium.

Cultural Setting
Coastal areas of southern California appear to have been occupied by humans for at least 10,000 years. Archaeological evidence suggests the earliest inhabitants were well adapted to marine habitats, exploiting shellfish and other marine resources found along the coastline (Dixon 1999; Erlandson 1994; Vellanoweth and Altschul 2002). Although these early sites are uncommon, archaeological components increase dramatically in number after about 8000 years before present Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
April 26, 2023
aecom.com
Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx
4/9
(B.P.), indicating expanding populations. This period, known regionally as the Millingstone Period due to the abundance of handstones and milling slabs in archaeological sites, saw the establishment of numerous settlements located adjacent to local lagoons and estuaries that supported edible plant, animal, and marine resources (Drover et al. 1983).

By approximately 3500–3000 B.P., settlement patterns shifted to reflect more sedentary and territorial lifestyles. The number of sites decreased as populations settled into residential bases near freshwater sources and seasonal camps became more infrequent (Koerper et al. 2002). By around 1500 B.P., new patterns emerged that are associated with the florescence of the contemporary Native American group known as the Gabrielino, or Tongva, who occupied what is presently Los Angeles County and northern Orange County, along with the southern Channel Islands (Kroeber 1925). Settlement at this time is believed to have consisted of dispersed family groups that revolved around a relatively limited number of permanent village settlements that were located centrally with respect to a variety of resources (Koerper et al. 2002). The nearest of these village settlements to Landing Hill was the ethnographic village of Puvungna, located in what is now Long Beach just north and west of the Project area.

In 1834, the Project area became part of Rancho Los Alamitos, which covered portions of southwestern Los Angeles and northwestern Orange Counties. The rancho was purchased in 1844 by Abel Stearns, who in 1881 sold it to Isaias Hellman, who built a ranch house near the north end of Landing Hill. At that time, the area surrounding the Project area was used for farming and cattle ranching. The property was developed for oil and gas production in the early-middle twentieth century and is currently owned by Hellman Properties, LLC.

Previous Cultural Resources Investigations
In 2019, a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University at Fullerton in support of a proposed gas plant to be located approximately 320 feet southwest of the current project area (Wahoff 2019). The results of this records search, including previous surface and subsurface investigations and known cultural resources, are discussed below.

Previous Surveys
The 2019 records search revealed that at least 18 previous cultural resources surveys or other archaeological investigations have been conducted within 0.25 mile of the current Project area, and that the entire Project area has been intensively surveyed for archaeological resources on at least four occasions (Archaeological Associates 1980; Rosenthal and Padon 1990; Stickel 1996; York and Willey 2004). None of these field surveys revealed any cultural resources within the Project area, although one (Archaeological Associates 1980) noted two dispersed scatters of marine shell (CA-ORA-850 and -851) located approximately 500 and 50 feet east and northeast of the Project area, respectively. Other cultural resources within 0.25 mile include CA-ORA-257, -258, and -259, all consisting of remnants of prehistoric shell middens along the crest of Landing Hill to the south of the Project area (Redwine 1958; Stickel 1996; Cleland et al. 2007); P-30-01544, a large but dispersed scatter of marine shell and artifacts located on the Boeing Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
April 26, 2023
aecom.com
Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx
5/9
property immediately north of Adolfo Lopez Drive (Underwood 2000); and the Los Alamitos Pump Station, approximately 550 feet north of the Project area (Shepard 2002).

Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25 mile of Project Area Primary Number Trinomial Description Time Period
P-19-186926 N/A Alamitos Pump Station Historic
P-30-000257 CA-ORA-257 Shell midden, groundstone and flaked stone implements Prehistoric P-30-000258 CA-ORA-258 Shell midden; groundstone and flaked stone implements; polishing stone, debitage
Prehistoric
P-30-000259 CA-ORA-259 Shell midden; groundstone and flaked stone implements; debitage
Prehistoric
P-30-000850 CA-ORA-850 Shell scatter Prehistoric
P-30-000851 CA-ORA-851 Shell scatter Prehistoric
P-30-001544 N/A Shell scatter; mano; hammerstone Prehistoric The most recent surface survey that included the current Project area (York and Willey 2004) also identified four scatters of marine shell elsewhere within the Hellman property. These contained no prehistoric artifacts and were all mixed with gravel, asphalt, and various recent debris. These and other shell-bearing surface deposits in the project area were interpreted as dredge spoil mixed with imported fill that was used to infill the former marshlands associated with Alamitos Bay at this location.

Previous Subsurface Investigations
Although several extensive archaeological excavations have been conducted along the crest of Landing Hill just to the south and east of the Project area (Cleland et al. 2007; Desautels 1981; Redwine 1958; Stickel 1996), subsurface investigation in the lower elevations within the Hellman Ranch OGPF have been limited to an unreported testing program at CA-ORA-851 by LSA Associates in 1990, and an exploratory archaeological trenching program by EDAW, Inc. in 2006.

LSA Testing at CA-ORA-851: In 1990, LSA Associates initiated an extensive subsurface testing program for a planned residential development on a portion of Landing Hill just to the east of the Project area. This testing program included several large prehistoric sites along the crest of the hill (CA-ORA-260, -261, -262, and -263), as well as site CA-ORA-851, which is located approximately 50 feet to the east of the present Project area. Although the LSA testing program included the excavation of more than 100 test units among the five sites, the project was discontinued before a report was completed and the artifacts have since disappeared (see Cleland et al. 2007; York 2006). However, York (2006) reported that field forms provided to EDAW, Inc. by LSA indicated that two 1-by-1 meter (m) test units were excavated at CA-ORA-851, both yielding only small amounts of marine shell. The shells were limited to the upper 20 cm of the Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
April 26, 2023
aecom.com
Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx
6/9
deposit, in a highly disturbed context that also included imported fill and construction debris.

Below this disturbed layer, according to the LSA field notes, were natural sediments containing no shells.

Exploratory Trenching by EDAW, Inc. (York 2006): In 2006, EDAW, Inc. conducted a program of exploratory archaeological trenching at various locations throughout the Hellman Ranch OGPF in support of a proposed underground tank farm replacement project (York 2006). A total of 31 trenches were excavated, including 20 along proposed pipeline alignments and 11 within the footprint of the proposed tank farm. Each trench measured approximately 10 m long and between 120 and 200 centimeters (cm) deep. Of the 31 trenches, 4 were placed within or immediately adjacent to the present Project area: trenches 1, 2, and 20 in the far southeastern portion, and Trench 6 in the northwestern portion (Table 2).

Table 2. Exploratory Trenches Reported by EDAW, Inc. within Project Area (York 2006) Trench Depth Description
11 0-40 cm Disturbed mix of natural sediments and artificial fill; contains small amount of marine shell 40-120 cm Natural alluvial/estuarine sediments – no cultural material 2 0-120 cm Natural estuarine and alluvial sediments – no cultural material 6 0-30 cm Disturbed silty clay loam – no cultural material 30-120 cm Natural estuarine and alluvial sediments – no cultural material 20 0-120 cm Natural estuarine and alluvial sediments – no cultural material 1 Partially within the recorded boundary of CA-ORA-851
The results of the 2006 trenching program within the present Project area (York 2006) are shown in Table 2. Trench 1, placed at the northern boundary of CA-ORA-851, appears to confirm the field notes for the LSA excavations: the upper 40 cm is clearly disturbed and contains sand, gravel, sparse marine shell, and recent debris. Underlying this were apparently undisturbed alluvial or estuarine fine sand, silt, and clay sediments that contained no shell. On this basis, York (2006) concluded that CA-ORA-851 likely represents an artificial fill deposit composed in part from sediment dredged from nearby Alamitos Bay.

Cultural Resources Assessment and Recommendations
Several previous intensive archaeological surveys that have included portions of the Hellman Ranch OGPF revealed no archaeological resources within the present Project area. Of the seven cultural resources that have been previously recorded within 0.25 mile of the Project area, only one, CA-ORA-851, is closer than approximately 500 feet to areas subject to direct disturbance from the proposed solar array construction. This resource, a dispersed scatter of marine shell fragments, was subject to subsurface archaeological examinations in 1996 and 2006, both of which indicated that the deposit most likely represents recently imported fill materials. It would Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
April 26, 2023
aecom.com
Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx
7/9
not be affected by the proposed solar array construction. Additionally, the rest of the 2006 exploratory trenching program designed to identify buried archaeological resources at various locations within the Hellman Ranch OGPF was entirely negative, including at several locations within the present Project area (York 2006).

These results indicate that the archaeological sensitivity of the Project area is generally low, at least in near-surface contexts. During the late prehistoric and early historic periods, the Project area was within the low, marshy areas associated with Alamitos Bay and would have been regularly inundated and generally unsuitable for more than occasional habitation. However, as noted in previous studies, the lowlands at this location are largely mantled by either recent alluvium or artificial fill that could obscure older surfaces that could have supported habitation earlier in the Holocene when sea levels were lower than present. Moreover, the possibility for non-habitation archaeological activities, such as human interments, should be considered for these lowland contexts – particularly in view of the extensive mortuary complex that was identified nearby along the crest of Landing Hill (Cleland et al. 2007). Finally, it is also possible that archaeological materials associated with the historic period use of this locality – perhaps refuse deposits from the early Hellman Ranch, or early twentieth century industrial remains – could also be encountered.

For these reasons, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist and a Native American cultural monitor be present during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the solar facility. Should potentially significant archaeological resources be encountered, construction would be suspended while a treatment plan is developed in consultation with the City, Hellman Properties, and tribal representatives as appropriate.

Sincerely,
Andrew L. York
Senior Archaeologist
Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
April 26, 2023
aecom.com
Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx
8/9

REFERENCES CITED
Archaeological Associates
1980 Archaeological Survey Report: the Hellman Property in Seal Beach, California.

Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

City of Seal Beach
2003 General Plan. City of Seal Beach. https://www.sealbeachca.gov.

Cleland, James, Andrew York, and Lorraine Willey
2007 Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered. EDAW Cultural Publications 3. On file at AECOM, San Diego.

Desautels, Roger
1981 Archaeological Test Report on the Hellman Property Located in the City of Seal Beach, California (Tract 11302). Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Dixon, E. J.
1999 Bones, Boats, and Bison: Archaeology & the First Colonization of Western North America. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Drover, C. E., H. C. Koerper, and P. Langenwalter II
1983 Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-Ora-64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 19(3 & 4):1–84.

Erlandson, Jon M.
1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York.

Koerper, H. C., R. D. Mason, and M. L. Peterson
2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 63-81. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Kroeber, A. L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.

Devon Shay
Hellman Properties LLC
April 26, 2023
aecom.com
Hellman Solar Cultural Assmnt 4_26_2023.Docx
9/9
Redwine, P.
1958 Landing Hill. Report on file, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.

Rosenthal, Jane, and Beth Padon
1990 Field and Archival Review of Archaeological Sites on Hellman Property. Prepared for Mola Development, Newport Beach. LSA Associates, Irvine.

Underwood, Jackson
2000 Site Record for P-30-0001544. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Shepard, Richard S.

Site Record for P-19-1866926. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Stickel, E. Gary
1996 An Archaeological Site Survey of the Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach, California. Report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Vellanoweth, R. L., and J. H. Altschul
2002 Antiquarians, Culture Historians, and Scientists: The Archaeology of the Bight. In Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Donn R. Grenda, pp. 85–111. SRI Press, Tucson.

Wahoff, Tanya
2019 Hellman Proposed Gas Plant Cultural Resources Assessment Report. Letter report to Devon Shay, Hellman Properties, LLC. On file at Hellman Properties LLC, 1 Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach, California, 90740.

York, Andrew L.
2006 Archaeological Investigations in Support of the Hellman Tank Farm Replacement Project, Seal Beach, California. EDAW (now AECOM), San Diego, California.

Prepared for the Department of Development Services, City of Seal Beach.

York, Andrew L., and Lorraine Willey
2004 Cultural Resources Survey for the Hellman Properties Tank Farm Replacement, Seal Beach, California. Prepared for the Department of Development Services, City of Seal Beach.

Main Office Phone:
310 - 798-2400
Direct Dial:
310-798-2412
Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
700 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
www.cbcearthlaw.com
Michelle N. Black
Email Address:
[email protected]
September 19, 2025
Via Email [email protected]
Mr. Shaun Temple
Planning Manager
City of Seal Beach
Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Re: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
Dear Mr. Temple,
Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT) has advocated for the protection and restoration of Los Cerritos Wetlands for over twenty years. It is in this spirit that LCWLT submits these comments on the Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project (Project).

Although LCWLT supports the use of renewable solar energy where it is appropriate and environmentally friendly, LCWLT is concerned that siting the 1.5- megawatt Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project within Los Cerritos Wetlands will adversely impact the wetland complex. The Project would construct 3 arrays with 56 solar table structures and 3,100 solar panels on 4.66 acres surrounded by Los Cerritos Wetlands and adjacent to the Hellman Ranch Trail. (MND p. 6.) The system would require concrete foundations and 388 concrete piers, 18 inches in diameter, driven 6 feet into the ground, for support. (MND p. 7.) Collector cables, inverters, subpanels, power cables, transformers, and disconnect switches would also be required, with the transformer pad being 12 feet in width and 33 feet in length. (MND p. 8.) The Project would require excavating 600 feet of underground trench, with an expected construction time of three to four months. (MND p. 9.) This will require significant disruption of a sensitive location.

Construction would require “removal of the vegetative cover” and all organic matter “from the limits of the construction area.” (MND p. 12.) After any grading, the 388 piles would be driven 6 feet underground. Given the location of the Project within 1 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 2 ends

Los Cerritos Wetlands, however, groundwater can be expected at depths of four to seven feet below ground surface. (MND p. 12.) The Project’s anticipated lifetime is 25 to 30 years.

LCWLT is concerned the Project construction and operation will harm important biological resources, be subject to flooding, and have unstudied and unmitigated glint and glare impacts. Specifically, the MND fails to account for Least Bell’s Vireo populations observed nearby and for wetland indicators present over recent rainy seasons. The MND also relies on an unconstructed berm to reduce the likelihood of flooding. It omits discussion of panel glint and glare that may blind or otherwise disrupt bikers and other recreational users of the Hellman Ranch and San Gabriel River Bike Trails. The MND further fails to analyze the site as a tribal cultural landscape recognized by the California Coastal Commission and other public agencies. Accordingly, LCWLT urges the City to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) to further analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts if it wishes to approve the Project.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves two basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environmental protection and encouraging governmental transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) CEQA requires full disclosure of a project’s significant environmental effects so that decision-makers and the public are informed of these consequences before the project is approved, to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) When substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant impact on the environment, an environmental impact report is required.

A lead agency prepares an initial study to determine whether an EIR, a negative declaration, or an MND is the appropriate environmental review document. (14 CCR § 15365, herein “CEQA Guidelines.”) “All phases of project planning, implementation, and operation must be considered in the initial study.” (CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(a)(1).) The initial study must consider whether any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant adverse impact. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15063(b)(1).) The purpose of the initial study is to provide the lead agency with adequate information regarding a project to determine the appropriate environmental review document and “documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.” (Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 1170, citations omitted.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1201.) “Where an agency. . . fails to gather information and undertake 2 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 3 ends

an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate.” (El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591, 1597, citations omitted.) Failure to adequately analyze all of a project’s potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a failure to comply with the law.

When a project may have a significant impact on the environment, it necessitates the preparation and certification of an EIR, not an MND. One of the first steps in the process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. “[S]ince the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA, accomplishment of the high objectives of that act requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact.” (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) Under the CEQA Guidelines, “‘Substantial evidence’ means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (Guidelines § 15384(a), emphasis added; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 905.) The fair argument standard is a “low threshold” test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (No Oil, supra, 13 Cal.3d 68, 84.) Review is de novo, with a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Architectural Heritage Assn. v.

County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1110; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602-1603.) As discussed further below, as the MND fails to adequately disclose and analyze the Project’s potential environmental effects, and as there is substantial evidence of a fair argument the Project may have significant impacts on biological resources, hydrology, glint and glare, and tribal cultural resources, an EIR is required.

I. The Project May Have Significant Impacts on Biological Resources.

The Project site consists of 4.66 acres in the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility, east of the San Gabriel River and north of Pacific Coast Highway.

The Project site is within and surrounded by Los Cerritos Wetlands. The solar facility would be constructed immediately north of 100 acres owned by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority, east of an additional 71 acres of wetlands owned by the Authority, south of 43 acres zoned open space-natural that serve as a County of Orange retention basin, and west of the Hellman Ranch Trail. (MND p. 2.)

3 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 4 ends

Both the Project site and surrounding lands contain sensitive habitats hosting special-status species. These species include, but are not limited to, southern tarplant, Least Bell’s Vireo, Belding’s Savannah Sparrow, and the Western Burrowing Owl. The Project’s potential impacts on these birds and on rare plant species must be thoroughly evaluated and carefully mitigated.

A. The MND’s Biological Resources Surveys are Outdated.

According to Table 2-1 of the Biological Technical Report, the MND’s conclusions about the Project’s potential impacts to biological resources were based on:
1) Focused botanical survey were conducted in summer 2022 and winter 2023; 2) Least Bell’s Vireo surveys conducted in summer 2022; and 3) Jurisdictional waters/wetlands assessment performed between August 2022 and March 2023.

As each of these investigations occurred at least 2.5 years ago, they are outdated and cannot be relied on to determine the Project will not have significant impacts on biological resources.

Southern tarplant, which has a California rare plant rank of 1B, was most recently mapped in 2022. Similarly, Coulter’s goldfield individuals were mapped in 2023.

However, both rare plants are annual species, meaning the MND’s biological resources analysis should be based on the results of surveys from the most recent blooming season.

Least Bell’s Vireo, listed as endangered under the U.S. and California Endangered Species Acts, is a migratory species whose population and nesting locations fluctuate annually. The MND must include results 2025 breeding season surveys. It does not. An EIR should include this missing information.

B. The Project Site Contains Wetlands Not Disclosed in the MND.

During the record rainy seasons of the winters of 2022-23 and 2023-24, many depressional wetlands across Los Cerritos Wetlands held water for upwards of 6 months, allowing wetland indicators to present themselves. However, the MND’s jurisdictional wetlands assessment includes four photos taken in August 2022. The photos predate these record rains and do not accurately capture current site conditions. On the contrary, aerial imagery from February 2024 indicates substantial ponding and flooding of the Project area, which should be analyzed in the Technical Report and MND. Thus, substantial evidence demonstrates the area has recently been wetland, a fact not disclosed in the MND. Any wetlands designations or potential ramifications of the Project to wetlands or 4 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 5 ends

wetland-dependent species must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR.

Figure 1. Aerial imagery from February 2024 with areas of flooded outlined in red.

C. Least Bell’s Vireo Use the Project Site.

LCWLT has performed surveys of the Least Bell’s Vireo population in the Heron Pointe Bioswale, nearly adjacent to the Project site, for the last 5 breeding seasons.

Individuals of this endangered species have been observed nesting, each year, within 100 feet of the project boundary and have also been observed foraging within the area the MND discloses would be subject to permanent Project impact. The MND acknowledges that 96-decibel noise is expected at the Heron Pointe Bioswale. Foraging habitat for Least Bell’s Vireo is protected by state and federal law. Impacts to this species could be considered a “take,” and warrant a mandatory finding of significant impact under CEQA.

An EIR must be prepared to thoroughly disclose, analyze, and mitigate impacts to Least Bell’s Vireo.
5 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 6 ends

D. An EIR Must Evaluate Fuel Modification and Type Conversion Impacts.

The MND’s Biological Technical Report mentions “fuel modification zones” but does not provide any information as to how these areas are permitted, the activities that occur in these zones, or the timing of activities performed in these zones. If fuel modification occurred before biological surveys for the MND were conducted, the Project’s Biological Technical Report may not reflect the full scope of species or individuals present on the site under “pre-project” conditions. The data collected in the surveys may not be valid. Since the fuel modification zones overlap with the locations of special status plant populations, the fuel modification zones require a coastal development permit. In order to ensure fuel modification occurs within a comprehensive plan, and that all fuel modification impacts are considered cumulatively, we request the incorporation of a mitigation measure requiring preparation of a permitted plan that covers all fuel modification practices throughout the property.

Table 3-5 of the IS/MND includes a sensitive vegetation type called “Distichlis spicata – annual grasses” that comprises 1.66 acres of the total project impact area. This vegetation type overlaps with fuel modification areas. However, removal of vegetation in the area where this vegetation type is found could result in a level of disturbance that promotes invasion of annual grasses. This “type conversion” is a significant impact on biological resources that is not disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated in the MND.

Furthermore, aerial imagery analysis indicates that most of this vegetation type (Distichlis spicata – annual grasses) has been disturbed by mowing as recently as September 2025. Heavy mowing can degrade sensitive native plant communities and alter vegetation alliances. Mowing of Distichlis spicata should require a coastal development permit. Additionally, this mowing nullifies the findings of the 2022 botanical surveys performed for this Project’s Biological Technical Report. We request the City require pre-construction surveys of site vegetation after the passage of 2 blooming seasons, without mowing interference, within the study area. 6 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 7 ends

Figure 2. Aerial imagery from September 2025 indicating recent mowing of the Distichlis spicata - annual grasses herbaceous alliance.

E. The Project’s Mitigation Measures Fail to Ensure Project Impacts Will Be Reduced Below Significance.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2, provides, “To the extent feasible, the project site shall not be graded.” This Measure is not enforceable due to the inclusion of the modifier “To the extent feasible.” The Measure does not state the criteria for feasibility or the entity that will decide feasibility. This renders the mitigation speculative. Mitigation measures must be concrete and enforceable. (Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 425, 445; Pub. Resources Code § 21081.6(b).) Mitigation Measure BIO-5, the Southern Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, fails to recognize that the project area has been mowed as recently as September 2025.

For efficacy, this Mitigation Measure should prohibit impacts to the existing plant community until the completion of pre-construction surveys. Due to the potential that both Southern Tarplant and Coulter’s Goldfields have been impacted by unauthorized mowing, the replacement mitigation ratio should be changed to 10:1. Such a ratio would adequately mitigate for previous, unpermitted impacts to these special status plant species.
7 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 8 ends

The Project should incorporate a mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction jurisdictional wetland assessment be performed during the wet season most proximal to future construction.

The Project should also incorporate a mitigation measure requiring preconstruction surveys for Least Bell’s Vireo and consultations with both the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

As Project mitigation fails to eliminate the Project’s potential for significant impacts to listed plant and wildlife species, an EIR is required.

II. The Project May Have Significant Undisclosed and Unmitigated Hydrological Impacts.

As depicted above, the Project site has experienced recent ponding. It is surrounded by bodies of water and the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex. Accordingly, accurate analysis of flooding and hydrological impacts is important. The MND appears to rely on an offsite berm to reduce flood impacts at the Project. Section 3.4.10 of the IS/MND states that an earthen berm proposed by a neighboring landowner will “further reduce the potential for flooding on-site.” (MND p. 51.) However, a Project cannot rely upon mitigation provided by another agency, at another site. When a potentially significant environmental impact cannot be mitigated by the lead agency, it must be assumed to remain significant. Thus, the impact analysis must be performed from the perspective that this non-existent berm may never be constructed.

Furthermore, the IS/MND appears to rely on a technical report produced by Moffatt and Nichol in 2019 for a different project previously proposed for the subject property. Aside from the technical report’s age and irrelevant subject matter, the technical report was not provided as part of the IS/MND appendix. This renders the IS/MND incomplete. A Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study must be specifically prepared for this project and circulated to the public and decisionmakers as part of an EIR. CEQA does not tolerate attempts to sweep important public safety issues “under the rug.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v 32nd Dist. Ag. Ass’n. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, 935.) III. The MND Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate Glint and Glare Impacts.

A. The Project May Cause Glare to Recreational Trail Users and the Tribal Gathering Area.

As acknowledged in the MND, the LCWA-owned Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project is located immediately south of the Project site. The restoration 8 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 9 ends

project – scheduled to begin construction in October 2025 – will contain a 6-foot earthen perimeter berm on its northern boundary. This berm will separate the Hellman property from the LCWA parcel. As discussed above, the MND assumes implementation of that berm to justify its conclusion that flooding impacts from sea level rise will not occur. (MND p. 51). Accordingly, implementation of said berm – and all its functions – should be incorporated throughout the analysis, including that of glare.

To determine potential glare impacts, the MND identifies three observation points (OP) in the LCWA property, two of which are effectively located on the wetlands-side of the perimeter berm: #28 (33.752156, -118.092389) and #29 (33.752155, -118.095105).

Per the glare analysis (MND Appendix D), these OP were set 6 feet off the ground. This is too low. There will be a docent-only access trail located atop the perimeter berm (Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration p. 24). Albeit restricted use, this trail will periodically contain recreational users who will travel the length of the trail to travel from one side of the restored wetlands to the other.

At +12 ft. (6 ft. berm and 6 ft. user) the recreational user atop the berm would be taller than the panel arrays. And as the panels are south-facing (i.e. facing the perimeter trail) and there is not a “barrier” obstructing views, users would have direct line of site to the panels along the majority of this trail. There is a strong potential for glare impacts to users of the perimeter trail, and an analysis of the strength, severity, and duration of these potential impacts must be conducted. These are likely significant glare impacts, with significant impacts to recreation. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts.

As the perimeter berm/trail are irregularly shaped, and the selected observation points are located on portions of the future trail where the recreational user is walking east/west (parallel to the panels), it is recommended that the EIR’s glare analysis also include OP on the north-south portions of the trail where the user is looking directly at the panels along that trail stretch as they otherwise enjoy their walk of the restored wetlands.

Once the analysis is revised to understand and disclose potential impacts to recreational users of the perimeter trail, these impacts must be fully mitigated. Given the project-specific needs (south facing panels situated to avoid shading), and site constraints (limited space to put the panels given ongoing operations and highly sensitive wetland/habitat areas), determining feasible mitigation could be a challenge. If the revised glare analysis shows an impact to users of the perimeter trail, and this impact cannot be fully mitigated, the EIR must disclose this information to the public. Moreover, the Project should not move forward. The City of Seal Beach is on the cusp of having a restored wetlands right in their backyard. We would hope Seal Beach would prioritize protecting this important amenity and its recreational users. 9 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 10 ends

Additionally, the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project will include two public outlooks and one tribal gathering area on its southern boundary. The outlooks and gathering area will be higher in elevation than surrounding lands and are oriented so that public and tribal entities will look down and across the restored wetlands (i.e. facing the solar panels). As these outlooks and tribal gathering area will be set at a higher elevation than the berm, they will likely have line of sight to the panels. The EIR’s revised glare analysis should analyze potential glare impacts to the public and to tribes who will use these outlooks and tribal gathering area.

Lastly, MND Table 3-1 identifies OP1-8 and OP26 as “no glare with existing vegetation screening” whereas the other OPs are described as “no glare with or without existing vegetation screening.” The MND does not explain this discrepancy. The revised analysis should include a “without vegetation” scenario for OP1-8 and OP26.

B. Project Glint May Blind Bikers on the San Gabriel River Bike Path.

The MND fails to disclose or analyze whether the solar panels are visible to northbound bikers along the adjacent San Gabriel River bike path. The revised analysis must include analysis of glint. Bikers travel at high speed along this path, and a blinding flash from the panels as they whiz by could result in an accident and injuries.

C. The MND Fails to Adequately Consider Glint and Glare Impacts on Birds.

As birds fly at varying altitudes, the glint and glare of the solar panels may impact birds, including species of special concern, that fly above or below 6 feet above ground.

Solar arrays reflect light that, at certain angles, makes the panels appear to birds as bodies of water. This “lake effect,” can injure or kill birds that try to land in these nonexistent bodies of water. If affected birds include listed species known to inhabit Los Cerritos Wetlands, including state and federally-listed birds, the Project may “take” birds under the Acts. (Attachment 2, pp. 9-10.) Solar facilities may also interfere with songbird migrations for species relying on polarized light for orientation. (Attachment 2, p. 10.) A review of studies of solar facilities reported:

By the time a bird may realise the panels are not water, it may be too late for the bird to stop its dive from the sky and fly away. Birds that collide with the panels are also likely to be disoriented or injured and more vulnerable to predation.

As well as increasing the direct risk of collision and injuries, diversion off flight paths will increase depletion of energy reserves, potentially stranding animals and leading to mortality from starvation.
10 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 11 ends

Obstruction from panels and fencing can also hinder birds from taking-off. For example, water-obligate birds that require water for take-off (ensu) – including loons (Gaviiformes), grebes (Podici-pediformes), cormorants (Suliformes), coots (Gruiformes) and some ducks (Anseriformes; e.g., Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis) – and those that use water for some aspect of their life history (e.g., family Chara- driidae) are amongst the mortalities at solar facilities. Stranding of these birds would contribute to the disproportionate number of waterbirds represented amongst the cases where starvation has been identified as cause of death.
(Attachment 2, p. 10.) While the MND claims impacts from the “lake effect” are unlikely due to the Project’s small size and the presence of other nearby water sources (MND p. 32), the MND cites no support for this claim. That an impact occurs at large PV installations does not mean it will not occur at a smaller one. Birds may land at any perceived water bodies in the area, including the Project. Given the presence of wetlands nearby, and the higher prevalence of birds in the area, the Project’s location near water may exacerbate, not reduce, this potential impact. Furthermore, the MND does not address potential interference with songbird migration.

An EIR must be prepared to disclose, analyze, and fully mitigate these potentially significant undisclosed impacts on biological resources.

IV. The MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts on Tribal Cultural Landscapes.

The Project’s Cultural Resources assessment fails to recognize the Traditional Cultural Landscape that has been identified for this area in previously-approved environmental documents. The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority’s 2021 Program EIR and the 2024 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project both indicate that consultations with local tribal groups identified a Traditional Cultural Landscape throughout the current extent of the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex. The potential for this Traditional Cultural Landscape was first described by consultations performed by Coastal Commission staff regarding the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project. The LCWA’s 2023 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Cogstone, 2023) includes an evaluation of what is called the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PTCL). This evaluation determined that “The PTCL meets the criteria of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and has sufficient integrity to justify being regarded as eligible for the Register. The area is recommended eligible for the National Register as a Traditional Cultural Property. Since it is recommended for the National Register, it is automatically recommended as eligible 11 City of Seal Beach
Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project
September 19, 2025

Page 12 ends

for the CRHR.” (Attachment 2.)
The proposed project’s assessment of Tribal Cultural Resources makes no mention of the PTCL and therefore does not consider potential impacts or offer mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any such impacts. Impacts generated by the proposed Project to this Traditional Cultural Landscape would be considered significant and unavoidable based on the LCWA’s previous CEQA determinations in the area.

Conclusion
LCWLT thanks the City for its consideration of these comments and urges it to prepare an environmental impact report before considering this potentially impactful Project further.

Sincerely,
Michelle Black
Enclosures

1. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project, Cogstone (2023).

2. P.A. Fleming, All that Glitters: Review of solar energy impacts on fauna, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2025).
12 ENCLOSURE 1
13 Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project
April 2023
Appendix F: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project
lllilllllllllillllll mo f fatt & nichol
14 1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Office (714) 974-8300
Field Offices
San Diego • Riverside • Morro Bay • Sacramento • Arizona

cogstone.com
Toll free 888-333-3212
Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SDB
State Certifications DBE, WBE,, UDBE

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE

SOUTHERN LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS

RESTORATION PROJECT
Prepared for:

Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority
100 North Old San Gabriel Canyon Road
Azusa, CA 91702
Authors:

Desireé Martinez, M.A., Shannon Lopez, M.A., John Gust, Ph.D.

With contributions from:

Joyce Perry
Principal Investigator:

Desireé Martinez, M.A., RPA
Date:

October 2022; Revised January 2023, March 2023
Cogstone Project Number: 5148
Type of Study: Cultural Resources Assessment
Sites: P-30-000256, P-30-000258, P-30-000260, 2021_08_05_SD.1-I, 2021_08_28_DRM_1-I, 2021_08_06_SD.1, 2021_08_06_SD.2, 2021_08_06_SD.3, Hellman Channel, Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape
USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles: Los Alamitos (1984), Seal Beach (1981) Area: 105 acres
Key Words: Culturally sensitive area, Gabrielino/Gabrieleño/Tongva/Kizh, Juaneño/Acjachemen, Puvungna, Motuucheyngna; Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape cogstone

PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY- HISTORY
15 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE OF STUDY...........................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................2 PROJECT PERSONNEL ......................................................................................................................................5 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................................6 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.......................................................................................6 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................6 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE .............................................................................................................................7 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES .........................................................................7 NATIVE AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS .......................................................................................................8 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 14, SECTION 4307........................................................8 MITIGATION MEASURES..................................................................................................................................8 BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................................................................9 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...........................................................................................................................9 GEOLOGICAL SETTING....................................................................................................................................9 STRATIGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................................10 CULTURAL SETTING .......................................................................................................................................10 PRE-CONTACT HISTORY .......................................................................................................................................10 ETHNOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................................15 GABRIELINO (GABRIELEÑO; TONGVA; KIZH).........................................................................................................16 JUANEÑO (ACJACHEMEN).....................................................................................................................................23 HISTORIC SETTING..........................................................................................................................................25 CITY OF SEAL BEACH ...........................................................................................................................................25 RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS .......................................................................................................................................26 ISAIAS WOLF HELLMAN (OCTOBER 3, 1842-APRIL 9, 1920) ..................................................................................28 HELLMAN RANCH.................................................................................................................................................28 LOS ANGELES BASIN OIL INDUSTRY ......................................................................................................................29 PROJECT AREA HISTORY ......................................................................................................................................29 RECORDS SEARCH................................................................................................................................................30 CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM.........................................................30 P-30-000256 (LANDING HILL #1)........................................................................................................................31 P-30-000258 (LANDING HILL #3)........................................................................................................................31 P-30-000260 ......................................................................................................................................................31 OTHER SOURCES ..............................................................................................................................................31 SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH......................................................................................................................33 TRIBAL COORDINATION AND INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................33 TRIBAL ADVISORY COUNCIL.......................................................................................................................33 TRIBAL INTERVIEWS..............................................................................................................................................35 SURVEY.....................................................................................................................................................................39 METHODS............................................................................................................................................................39 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................................40 NEWLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................................41 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES .............................................................................................................................48 EXTENDED PHASE I TESTING............................................................................................................................48 16 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone iii
METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................49 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................................54 GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .....................................................................................55 METHODS............................................................................................................................................................55 CLASSIFICATIONS FOR BURIED SITE POTENTIAL ARE AS FOLLOW.............................................................................55 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................................56 SOILS MAPPED OVER ARTIFICIAL FILL....................................................................................................................56 SOILS MAPPED OVER MIDDLE TO LATE PLEISTOCENE OLD MARINE TO NONMARINE DEPOSITS ..................................57 TRIBAL FEEDBACK...............................................................................................................................................57 PAST USE OF SALT MARSHES.......................................................................................................................57 SALT AS MEDICINE................................................................................................................................................58 FISHING...............................................................................................................................................................60 COLLECTING PLANTS AND ANIMALS ......................................................................................................................60 CURRENT USE OF THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS AND SALT MARSHES ....................................62 FUTURE USE OF SALT MARSHES.................................................................................................................63 COLLECTION OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS .................................................................................................................63 HARVESTING SALT................................................................................................................................................64 COLLECTION OF DREDGED SHELL........................................................................................................................64 RECONNECTING WITH THE LAND...........................................................................................................................64 PLACE TO LAUNCH TULE BOATS...........................................................................................................................64 CO-STEWARDSHIP................................................................................................................................................65 EDUCATION .........................................................................................................................................................66 GATHERING PLACE...............................................................................................................................................67 LAND CAPABILITY ................................................................................................................................................68 NURSERY .............................................................................................................................................................68 NAME OF THE PROJECT AREA ...............................................................................................................................68 CONCERNS..........................................................................................................................................................68 CONTAMINATION..................................................................................................................................................68 ACCESS................................................................................................................................................................69 THE PUVUNGNA TRADITIONAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE........................................................................69 RESEARCH APPROACH...................................................................................................................................70 TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................................70 IDENTIFYING LANDSCAPES...............................................................................................................................71 LANDSCAPE DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................................................72 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDANCE ....................................................73 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................................74 GABRIELINO (GABRIELEÑO, TONGVA) RELATIONSHIP TO THE LAND: MAXAAX ....................74 PUVUNGNA..........................................................................................................................................................76 MOTUUCHEYNGNA...............................................................................................................................................80 CONNECTION BETWEEN LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS COMPLEX, PUVUNGNA AND MOTUUCHEYNGNA........................82 EVALUATING THE PUVUNGNA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE .........................................................................83 APPROACH..........................................................................................................................................................83 THE PUVUNGNA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AS A "PROPERTY" ..........................................................84 NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ......................................................................................84 INTEGRITY OF RELATIONSHIP ...............................................................................................................................84 INTEGRITY OF CONDITION....................................................................................................................................85 NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA .............................................................................................................................85 CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................................................86 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................86 17 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone iv
CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATION..........................................................................................................87 ISOLATES ............................................................................................................................................................87 NEWLY RECORDED SITES .............................................................................................................................88 2021_08_06_SD.1..............................................................................................................................................88 2021_08_06_SD.2..............................................................................................................................................88 2021_08_06_SD.3..............................................................................................................................................88 HELLMAN CHANNEL.............................................................................................................................................89 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES ..................................................................................................................89 P-30-000256 (LANDING HILL #1)........................................................................................................................89 P-30-000258 (LANDING HILL #3) AND P-30-000260 ...........................................................................................90 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................................90 REFERENCES CITED.............................................................................................................................................93 APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS.....................................................................................................................109 APPENDIX B. MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE PEIR ......................................................................115 APPENDIX C. MAPS AND FIGURES .................................................................................................................129 APPENDIX D. USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS.........................................................................141 APPENDIX E. PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES ...................................................................151 APPENDIX F. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................164 APPENDIX G. HISTORIC TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS .........................................................................................212 APPENDIX H. SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH..............................................................................................216 APPENDIX I. SAMPLE TAG INVITATION .....................................................................................................218 APPENDIX J. JULY 23, 2021 SITE VISIT SIGN IN SHEET...........................................................................225 APPENDIX K. INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM AND QUESTIONS..............................................................227 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX L. SURVEY RESULTS AND EXTENDED PHASE I TESTING LOCATON MAPS........................................................................................................................................................................233 APPENDIX M. SOILS MAP..................................................................................................................................236 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX N. DPR SITE RECORDS ..................................................................................238 18 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone v

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROJECT VICINITY MAP..............................................................................................................................1 FIGURE 2. AERIAL MAP SHOWING THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS COMPLEX AND THE SOUTH LCW RESTORATION PROJECT AREA ......................................................................................................................................4 FIGURE 3. COMMODITIES TRADED FROM GABRIELINO (GABRIELEÑO; TONGVA; KIZH) TERRITORY TO/FROM THE KOHATK (O’ODHAM) ON THE GILA RIVER (FROM BEAN ET AL. 1978).............................................................19 FIGURE 4. A PORTION OF THE 1937/1938 KIRKMAN-HARRIMAN PICTORIAL AND HISTORICAL MAP OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHOWING THE COUNTY AS IT EXISTED IN 1860 WITH THE PROJECT AREA OVERLAIN.............22 FIGURE 5. MEETING WITH LCWA. COASTAL COMMISSION, AND TAG ON JULY 23, 2021....................................35 FIGURE 6. MERCEDES DORAME AND CINDI ALVITRE, GUM GROVE PARK, SEAL BEACH, CA AUGUST 14, 2021.38 FIGURE 7. CRAIG TORRES AND NICHOLAS ROCHA, LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS, SEAL BEACH, CA AUGUST 28, 202...............................................................................................................................................................................39 FIGURE 8. OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN LCW PROJECT AREA SHOWING DENSE VEGETATION, FACING NORTHEAST.................................................................................................................................................................40 FIGURE 9. OVERVIEW DREDGE SEDIMENTS AND SHELL WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.............................................41 FIGURE 10. SEGMENT OF HELLMAN CHANNEL NEAR 1ST STREET; FACING EAST ..................................................42 FIGURE 11. 2021_08_05_SD.1-I, ISOLATED OBSIDIAN DEBITAGE............................................................................43 FIGURE 12. 2021_08_28_DRM_1-I, GRANITIC MANO AND CHALCEDONY SCRAPER...............................................43 FIGURE 13. OVERVIEW OF FIRST WOOD PILE WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.1, FACING SOUTH .....................................44 FIGURE 14. OVERVIEW OF SECOND WOOD PILE WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.1, FACING NORTH.................................44 FIGURE 15. OVERVIEW OF CONCRETE PILE WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.1, FACING SOUTH........................................45 FIGURE 16. METAL SCRAP WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.1. ............................................................................................45 FIGURE 18. OVERVIEW OF CERAMIC TILE IN 2021_08_06_SD.2 .............................................................................47 FIGURE 19. HISTORIC SODA FIRED CERAMIC PIPE SHERD........................................................................................47 FIGURE 20. QUARTZ FLAKE WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.3 ..........................................................................................47 FIGURE 21. PINK QUARTZITE TOOL WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.3..............................................................................48 FIGURE 22. GREY QUARTZITE SCRAPER WITHIN 2021_08_06_SD.3.......................................................................48 FIGURE 23. STP 1 AT 2021_08_05_SD.1/I POST-EXCAVATION, VIEW TO THE NORTH. NOTE DIMENSIONAL LUMBER AT BOTTOM OF STP. ....................................................................................................................................50 FIGURE 24. STP 1B AT 2021_08_05_SD.1/I POST-EXCAVATION. NOTE DIMENSIONAL LUMBER AT BOTTOM OF STP..............................................................................................................................................................................50 FIGURE 25. STP 2 AT 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I POST-EXCAVATION............................................................................51 FIGURE 26. TEU 1 AT 2021_08_06.SD.3 POST EXCAVATION AT 55 CENTIMETERS DEEP, VIEW TO THE NORTH....53 FIGURE 27. STP 3 IN TEU 1 AT 2021_08_06.SD.3 POST EXCAVATION AT 152 CENTIMETERS DEEP, VIEW TO THE NORTH. ........................................................................................................................................................................53 FIGURE 28. LITHIC FLAKE (4) 1.4FROM TEU 1, 0 TO 10 CENTIMETERS BELOW SURFACE.......................................53 FIGURE 29. POSSIBLE LITHIC FLAKES FROM TEU 1, 0 TO 10 CENTIMETERS BELOW SURFACE...............................53 FIGURE 30. POSSIBLE LITHIC FLAKE FROM TEU 1, 16 TO 26 CENTIMETERS BELOW SURFACE...............................54 FIGURE 31. POSSIBLE LITHIC FLAKE FROM TEU 1, 20 TO 30 CENTIMETERS BELOW SURFACE...............................54 FIGURE 32. MONUMENT AT THE BALLONA DISCOVERY CENTER CREATED BY ROBERT DORAME........................62 FIGURE 33. HEIDI LUCERO (ACJACHEMEN) AND FRANK MAGALLANES (TI’AT SOCIETY) PADDLING A TULE BOAT

MADE DURING THE MOOMPETAM AMERICAN INDIAN FESTIVAL AT THE AQUARIUM OF THE PACIFIC, SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH RAINBOW HARBOR SURROUNDED BY PRIVATE BOATS..............................65 FIGURE 34. RELATIONSHIPS TO RELATIVES (TORRES N.D.A)...................................................................................75 FIGURE 35. THE OTHER THREE RS (TORRES N.D.B). ................................................................................................76 FIGURE 36. PRAYER POLE DECORATED FOR SOLSTICE AT PUVUNGNA AT CSULB. ................................................78 FIGURE 37. DISCUSSIONS AT PUVUNGNA AT CSULB WITH TONGVA WALK PARTICIPANTS, JULY 20, 2019...........79 FIGURE 38. REBURIAL AT PUVUNGNA AT CSULB IN 2016 (LEFT TO RIGHT) STEVE VILLA, CSU CHANCELLOR

TIMOTHY WHITE, CSULB PRESIDENT JANE CLOSE CONOLEY, NAGPRA COORDINATOR CINDY ALVITRE, CSULB’S DIRECTOR OF AMERICAN INDIAN STUDIES CRAIG STONE AND NAGPRA CHAIR LOUIS ROBLES JR. (DAILY 49’ER 2016). ...................................................................................................................................................79 FIGURE 39. SIGN ALONG THE HELLMAN RANCH TRAIL...........................................................................................81 FIGURE 40. OVERVIEW OF GATHERING PLACE CREATED ALONG THE TRAIL CONNECTING HERON POINT AND GUM GROVE PARK .....................................................................................................................................................81 19 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone vi
FIGURE C - 1. TOPOGRAPHIC PROVINCES (AFTER LIGHTFOOT AND PARRISH 2009)............................................130 FIGURE C - 2. GEOMORPHIC PROVINCES (AFTER LIGHTFOOT AND PARRISH 2009) .............................................131 FIGURE C - 3. GEOLOGY OF THE SOUTHERN LCW PROJECT AREA .....................................................................132 FIGURE C - 4. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TIMELINE .................................................................................................133 FIGURE C - 5. GABRIELINO (TONGVA) TERRITORY (AFTER MCCAWLEY 1996)...................................................134 FIGURE C - 6. RESOURCES USED BY NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES BY ECOLOGICAL ZONES (BASED ON HEIZER AND ELSASSER 1980: FIGURE 32) ....................................................................................................................................135 FIGURE C - 7. PACIFIC RIO GRANDE TRAILS LANDSCAPE (GATES ET AL. 2013: FIGURE 4) ................................136 FIGURE C - 8. JUANEÑO TERRITORY MAP (DATA COURTESY OF JUANEÑO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, ACJACHEMEN NATION) ............................................................................................................................................137 FIGURE C - 9. LAND GRANT MAP .............................................................................................................................138 FIGURE C - 10. LOCATION OF VILLAGES WITHIN THE PUVUNGNA TRADITIONAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE .........139 FIGURE C - 11. EXTENT OF PUVUNGNA TRADITIONAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ...................................................140 FIGURE D - 1. 1927 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER)...............142 FIGURE D - 2. 1928 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER)...............143 FIGURE D - 3. 1938 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER)...............144 FIGURE D - 4. 1952 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER)...............145 FIGURE D - 5. 1962 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER)...............146 FIGURE D - 6. 1965 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER)...............147 FIGURE D - 7. 1974 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER)...............148 FIGURE D - 8. 1994 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER)...............149 FIGURE D - 9. 2001 USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (COURTESY OF UCSB: FRAMEFINDER)...............150 FIGURE G - 1. 1896 USGS DOWNEY TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1:62,500) .....................................................................213 FIGURE G - 2. 1935 USGS LOS ALAMITOS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1:31,680)...........................................................214 FIGURE G - 3. 1942 USGS DOWNEY TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1:31,680) .....................................................................215 FIGURE L - 1. SURVEY COVERAGE AND RESULTS..................................................................................................234 FIGURE L - 2. SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2022 EXTENDED PHASE I TESTING LOCATIONS.........................................235 FIGURE M - 1. SOILS MAP ........................................................................................................................................237

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CULTURAL SEQUENCE (AFTER MASON AND PETERSON 2004)........................11 TABLE 2. ADDITIONAL SOURCES CONSULTED..........................................................................................................32 TABLE 3. LAND PATENTS...........................................................................................................................................33 TABLE 4. TRIBES INVITED TO TAG...........................................................................................................................34 TABLE 5. TRIBAL MEMBERS INTERVIEWED ..............................................................................................................36 TABLE 6. PLANNED EXCAVATION..............................................................................................................................48 TABLE 7. NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORING SCHEDULE ...........................................................................................49 TABLE 8. SELECTED SALT MARSH PLANTS................................................................................................................61 TABLE E – 1. PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS OF THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS COMPLEX ...................................................................................................................................................................................152 TABLE F – 1. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN A 3-MILE RADIUS OF THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS COMPLEX ..............................................................................................................................................165 20 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 1

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF STUDY
This study was conducted to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources during the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Project) as well as to document the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PTCL; Figure 1). The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Figure 1. Project vicinity map
co~tone
PALIE0NT0L0GY • ,.ltCH,'t,IE0LOGT • H15T0RT
Long Beach
n Pedrc 8 1 Pac fie ,c an
Project Location
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Sunset Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
II IJ Project Area
Anaheim ,,,
1 ..
a
z
Orang
e
Santa Ana
,0
'IF.
0 Newport Beach
0 2.5 5 Ki lometers

I I I I I I
0 2.5

I I I I I
1:300,000 I in = 5 miles
21 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 2

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project, located on the border of Los Angeles and Orange counties ( Figure 2), affords the opportunity to restore salt marsh, seasonal wetlands, and other freshwater wetlands within an approximately 503-acre area. The Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project (WRP), a partnership of 17 state and federal agencies, has identified the acquisition and restoration of the Los Cerritos Wetlands as a high regional priority. The restored habitat will provide multiple benefits, including provision of critical habitat for listed species and other fish and wildlife, carbon sequestration, improved flood control, sea level rise resiliency, preservation of tribal cultural resources, and improved public access to open space.

The Project area is located within the southern portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex which adjoins the lower reach of the San Gabriel River where, prior to channelization, the mouth of the San Gabriel River migrated back and forth across the coastal plain. Historically, the complex covered approximately 2,400 acres and stretched approximately two miles inland, varying from freshwater and brackish wetlands in its inland areas to salt marsh closer to the ocean. Channelization of the San Gabriel River began in the 1930s and cut off tidal action to much of the wetland area. The size of the historic wetlands has been reduced by agriculture, placement of fill and excavation of channels and basins for oil fields and landfill burn dumps, and urban development. There is ongoing oil production throughout the area and much of the remnant salt marsh is within a grid of dikes, berms, roadways, and levees. Other channels which service upstream power plants also bifurcate sections of the complex. Today, remnants of the historic wetlands occur in degraded patches, divided into the following four areas: North, Central, Isthmus, and South.

Furthermore, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex is significant to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh1) and Acjachemen (Juaneño) tribes. Tribal representatives described the Los Cerritos Wetlands and its surroundings as sacred lands that encompass a larger area of connected tribal sites. The Los Cerritos Wetlands are located in between the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna, and are thus considered by tribes to be part of a larger cultural landscape. This landscape will be identified as the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape in this study.

Through the conceptual restoration planning process, the LCWA determined what opportunities exist for Los Cerritos Wetlands restoration, public access, and interpretation that will meet the needs of the agency, community, and stakeholders. This included identifying opportunities for restoring tidal connections, creation of new wetland and associated upland habitats, consolidation of oil operations, improvement to passive recreation facilities, creation of a 1 Since there is not an agreement on the general term to be used to identify the descendants of the original people who lived within the Los Angeles Basin, the term Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) will be used throughout this proposal to recognize each group’s right of self-identification and tribal sovereignty. 22 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 3
visitor’s center, and accommodation of special status species. This analysis culminated in the Los Cerritos Wetlands Conceptual Restoration Plan (CRP) that was adopted by the LCWA’s Governing Board in August 2015.

The LCWA, as the lead agency, prepared then certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) in January 2021. This PEIR used the CRP designs to create a program description for a 503-acre program area. The potential impacts of this proposed program were analyzed, and mitigation measures were determined for potentially impacted resources. This program also included phasing for potential projects to eventually tier-off from the program.

One of the near-term projects identified by the PEIR is located in the South Area on 105 acres identified as the South LCWA site (aka Hellman Ranch Lowlands) and the State Lands Commission site (together comprising the Project area), both managed by LCWA. This Project area was historically salt marsh but has been altered through anthropogenic activities. The site currently contains former sumps, landfills, foundations, and contaminated areas from prior oil operations and land uses.

The Project is led by the LCWA, a joint powers authority (JPA) formed by the following four agencies:
• San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) • California State Coastal Conservancy (CSCC)
• City of Long Beach
• City of Seal Beach
23 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 4
Figure 2. Aerial map showing the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex and the South LCW restoration project area Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
II 11 Southern Project Arca
□ Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex
0 1,000
I I
0 250

I I I I I
1 :20,000
2,000 Feet

I I I N
500 Meters
I I A
1 in = 1,667 ft
24 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 5

PROJECT PERSONNEL
Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. (Cogstone) conducted pedestrian cultural resources and built environments surveys, a traditional cultural landscape study that included collecting and transcribing oral histories from tribal members, background research, and prepared this assessment report. Qualifications of key personnel are described below and short resumes are in Appendix A.
• Desiree Martinez served as Project Manager, provided QA/QC and conducted oral history interviews with members of the Gabrielino (Tongva) community, wrote and conducted the evaluation of the cultural landscape study, and co-authored this report.

Ms. Martinez is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) and holds an M.A. in Anthropology from Harvard University and has more than 24 years of experience in California archaeology.
• John Gust, RPA, served as the Task Manager and Principal Investigator for Archaeology for the Project, and co-authored this report. Dr. Gust has a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California (UC) Riverside, and over 10 years of experience in archaeology.
• Shannon Lopez conducted the built environment assessment and evaluation, and coauthored this report. Ms. Lopez holds an M.A. from California State University (CSU), Fullerton and has more than three years of experience as an architectural historian. • Kim Scott prepared the geoarchaeological section of this report. Ms. Scott has an M.S. in Biology with paleontology emphasis from CSU San Bernardino, a B.S. in Geology with paleontology emphasis from University of California, Los Angeles, and over 25 years of experience in California paleontology and geology.
• Logan Freeberg prepared the Geographic Information System (GIS) maps throughout this report. Mr. Freeberg has a B.A. in Anthropology from UC Santa Barbara and a GIS certification from CSU Fullerton and over 18 years of experience in California archaeology.
25 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 6

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA states that: It is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of the proposed project and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.

CEQA declares that it is state policy to: "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with...historic environmental qualities." It further states that public or private projects financed or approved by the state are subject to environmental review by the state. All such projects, unless entitled to an exemption, may proceed only after this requirement has been satisfied. CEQA requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project. In the event that a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
As of 2015, CEQA established that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resources Code, § 21084.2). In order to be considered a “tribal cultural resource,” a resource must be either:
(1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic resources, or
(2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a tribal cultural resource.

To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the lead agency must consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. If a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources, the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. Public Resources Code §20184.3 (b)(2) provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources.
26 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 7

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
Section 5097.5: No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands (lands under state, county, city, district or public authority jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction of a public corporation), except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. As used in this section, "public lands" means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is a listing of all properties considered to be significant historical resources in the state. The California Register includes all properties listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register, including properties evaluated under Section 106, and State Historical Landmarks No. 770 and above. The California Register statute specifically provides that historical resources listed, determined eligible for listing on the California Register by the State Historical Resources Commission, or resources that meet the California Register criteria are resources which must be given consideration under CEQA (see above). Other resources, such as resources listed on local registers of historic resources or in local surveys, may be listed if they are determined by the State Historic Resources Commission to be significant in accordance with criteria and procedures to be adopted by the Commission and are nominated; their listing in the California Register is not automatic.

Resources eligible for listing include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or historic districts that retain historical integrity and are historically significant at the local, state or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

In addition to having significance, resources must have integrity for the period of significance.

The period of significance is the date or span of time within which significant events transpired, 27 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 8
or significant individuals made their important contributions. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of significance.

Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register, if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

NATIVE AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS
Sites that may contain human remains important to Native Americans must be identified and treated in a sensitive manner, consistent with state law (i.e., Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and Public Resources Code §5097.98), as reviewed below:

In the event that human remains are encountered during project development and in accordance with the Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, the County Coroner must be notified if potentially human bone is discovered. The Coroner will then determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) with respect to the human remains. The MLD then has the opportunity to recommend to the property owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods.

CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 14, SECTION 4307
This section states that “No person shall remove, injure, deface or destroy any object of paleontological, archeological or historical interest or value.”

MITIGATION MEASURES
In addition to California State laws and codes, this Project is governed by Mitigation Measures developed for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). Mitigation Measures can be found in Appendix B. 28 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 9

BACKGROUND

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex area is located in the Peninsular Ranges topographic province (Appendix C,
Figure C - 1). The Peninsular Ranges extends from Mount San Jacinto in the north, through the tip of Baja, Mexico in the south. Subparallel to these ranges on the east is the San Andreas Fault Zone. The northwestwards motion of the Pacific Plate has created these ranges and their corresponding valleys. The topographic variations across California, created by plate tectonics, resulted in California Native populations having access to different ecosystems, fertile valleys, mountains and hills (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:52).

The current Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex is a remnant of a once much larger tidal estuary system that sits at the mouth of the San Gabriel River (Coastal Restoration Consultants 2021:5).

The greater area has long been hydrologically dynamic. For example, the Santa Ana River which is channelized at its mouth now flows into the Pacific Ocean in Huntington Beach but “composite of early historic maps of the Orange County region shows that the Santa Ana drainage has migrated within an area measuring approximately seventeen miles along the coastline. During various points in time, the river fed (from north to south): Alamitos Bay, Anaheim Bay, Bolsa Bay, Santa Ana Marsh, and Newport Bay” (WPA 1936 in Wiley 2012).

Further, California has been recognized as full of diversity based on its plants, animals and landscapes which in turn has affected human occupation and settlement through time. Based on this diversity, the California Geological Survey has divided the state into 12 geomorphic provinces. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex area is located within the South Coast Province (Appendix C,
Figure C - 2; Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:61; Schoenherr 2017:1).

The Southern LCW Project area “contains multiple former sumps, landfills, and contaminated areas from prior oil operations, and is currently owned and maintained by the LCWA. Some areas of tidal southern coastal salt marsh still persist on the site, but other areas were converted by previous land owners from coastal salt marsh habitat to primarily ruderal uplands with no tidal connections. Former access roads still bisect the site…” (ESA 2020).

GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The Southern LCW Project area lies in the broad coastal plain of Los Angeles and Orange counties, California, named the Tustin Plain. The Tustin Plain is bounded by the Santa Ana 29 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 10
Mountains to the east, the Puente and Coyote Hills to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the San Joaquin Hills to the south. Orange County is part of the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province, which is characterized by elongated northwest-trending mountain ridges separated by sediment-floored valleys. Faults branching off from the San Andreas Fault to the east create the local mountains and hills.

STRATIGRAPHY
The Southern LCW Project area is mapped as middle to late Pleistocene old marine to nonmarine deposits and modern artificial fill (Appendix C,
Figure C - 3; Saucedo et al. 2016).

Old marine to non-marine deposits, middle to late Pleistocene (Qom) These middle to late Pleistocene (500,000 to 11,700 years old), interfingering near shore marine and non-marine sediments were deposited along the ancient coast. Beach, estuarine, and reddish-brown alluvial deposits of clays to conglomerates are now frequently present as wave cut platforms brought to the surface by uplift (Saucedo et al. 2016).

Artificial fill, modern (af)
Modern artificial fill from dredging activities is less than 200 years old. These sediments will not contain scientifically significant fossils or artifacts if any are present. Only large areas of fill are typically mapped (Saucedo et al. 2016).

CULTURAL SETTING
Based on linguistic, ethnographic, and archaeological cultural affiliation, the Project Area has been occupied by the Gabrielino/Gabrieleño/Tongva/Kizh (McCawley 2002; Strudwick et al. 2007) and Juaneño (Acjachemen) since prior to the arrival of the Spanish and continuing to the present. The following summarizes the prehistoric setting, historic setting, and ethnography.

PRE-CONTACT HISTORY
Several Southern California regional syntheses exist (Appendix C, Figure C - 4), however this study will use the cultural sequence developed by Mason and Peterson (2004) since it was developed locally using many dated sites (N=37) and over 300 radiocarbon dates (see Table 1)
30 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 11
Table 1. Southern California Cultural Sequence (after Mason and Peterson 2004) Period Years Before
Present
Calendar Years
(AD/BC)
Mission 181-116 AD 1769-1834
Late Prehistoric 2 650-200 AD 1300-1750
Late Prehistoric 1 1350-650 AD 600-1300
Intermediate 3000-1350 1050 BC-AD 600
Milling Stone 3 4650-3000 2700-1050 BC
Milling Stone 2 5800-4650 3850-2700 BC
Milling Stone 1 8000-5800 6050-3850 BC
Paleo-Coastal Prior to 8000 Prior to 6050 BC
PALEOCOASTAL (PALEOINDIAN) PERIOD (PRIOR TO 6050 BC / 8000 BP) The search for the earliest Paleo-Coastal communities has been predicated on the “Ice Free Corridor” theory; that at the end of the Pleistocene (~11,700 years Before Present [BP]) people from northeast Asia crossed Beringia and entered the western United States through a gap between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets; after which they moved to settle the coasts.

Paleontological, geological and pollen analyses, however, has shown that the so-called “Ice Free Corridor” was not a viable migration option from 30,000 to 11,500 years ago (Mandryk et al. 2001). Additionally, with the increase in the number of accepted sites dated prior to 11,700 BP (e.g., Monte Verde, Chile at 14,800 BP) including several Coastal California Channel Island sites (e.g., Arlington Springs on Santa Rosa Island at 13,000 cal BP and Daisy Cave on San Miguel Island at 12,000 cal BP), new models for the settlement of the New World had to be considered (Erlandson et al. 1996; Johnson et al. 2002).

Paleo-Coastal subsistence patterns have predominantly been described as dependent on the hunting of megafauna as represented by large Clovis-like points in the archaeological record.

However, this pattern has not been convincingly identified in coastal California (Erlandson et al. 2007:56). Instead at early sites such as Daisy Cave, there is evidence of much more diverse subsistence patterns, particularly the use of a variety of marine habitats. As an alternative to the “Ice Free Corridor” theory and considering the cultural material seen at early Channel Islands sites, Erlandson et al. (2007) argue that the earliest New World settlers followed the productive kelp forest habitats that exist along the Pacific Rim. This “kelp highway” allowed settlers to use near shore marine resources, such as large red abalones (Haliotis rufescens), black turban snails (Tegula funebralis), sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus spp.), pinnipeds, sea otter, and California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) while portions of North America were covered by ice sheets. In addition to near-shore marine ecofacts found at early Channel Island sites, Paleocoastal artifacts include small stemmed Channel Island Barbed points, chipped stone crescents (proposed 31 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 12
to be used for bird hunting), fish gorges and evidence of boat technology (Erlandson et al. 2011).

There is also evidence, based on the discovery of spire lopped Callianax biplicata beads dating to 9000 to 7000 cal BC of inter-regional trade with the Great Basin (Fitzgerald et al. 2005).

The earliest evidence of the settlement of the Southern Channel Islands comes from Eel Point (SCLI-43) on San Clemente Island around 6500 to 6000 cal BC, straddling the PaleoCoastal/Milling Stone Period 1 boundary. Based on its distance from the mainland (77 kilometers), and the fact that it was never connected to the mainland, it can be assumed that seaworthy vessels were used, although no remnants of such vessels have been found to date (Cassidy et al. 2004; Yatsko 2000). Other evidence for the presence of seaworthy vessels on San Clemente Island includes a woodworking tool kit that is consistent with tools used to build watercraft historically (Rondeau et al. 2007). Eel Point also shows a marine subsistence pattern that is focused on hunting seals, sea lions, and dolphins as well as the collection of seashells (Porcasi and Fujita 2000). The earliest evidence of the occupation of San Nicolas Island occurred approximately 6555 BC (8505 BP) at CA-SNI-339 (Schwartz and Martz 1992). Earlier sites may have been lost due to rising sea levels after 10,000 BP (Martz 1994). Other sites show that the San Nicolas Islanders hunted sea mammals, near-shore fish such as perch, and a variety of shellfish (Bleitz-Sanburg 1987).

Milling Stone Period (6050-1050 BC / 8000-3000 BP)
Mason and Peterson divide the Milling Stone Period into three subdivisions: Milling Stone 1 (8000-5800 BP), Milling Stone 2 (5800-4650 BP), and Milling Stone 3 (4650-3000 BP). The climate at the beginning of Milling Stone Period 1 was warmer and drier than today with freezing winters rare near the coast. However, toward the end of the Milling Stone Period 1, the climate started to cool and stabilize to a climate similar to today’s weather (King 2001).

Also, during the Milling Stone Period there is evidence of trade between the Great Basin and other areas of California. Coso Mountain obsidian artifacts have been found at archaeological sites in southern California while shell beads, particularly Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads, have been found as far away as Oregon and Nevada (King 2001; Raab and Howard 2002; Vellanoweth 1995, 2001). Vellanoweth (2001) argues that Olivella Grooved Rectangle beads may be used as an ethnic marker for Uto-Aztecan speaking peoples like the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) since they were not made in Chumash territory to the north.

At 5000 BP on the southern California mainland, there was an increase in the quantity of ground stone tools (e.g., manos, metates, mortars, pestles) suggesting an intensification of the use of plant and marine resources, particularly seeds and shellfish (Arnold et al. 2004). Toward the end of the Milling Stone Period, the use of manos and metates subsided while the number of mortars and pestles grew. This switch may indicate that acorns started to make up a larger portion of the diet.
32 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 13
The presence of pottery within Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) territory prior to contact has been argued to be the result of trade or exchanges with those Native American communities that made pottery, i.e., the southwest or Colorado River Tribes. However, some archaeologists argue that they have identified fired hand shaped ceramic pieces using local materials. Nineteen irregular hand shaped and fired ceramic pieces from Little Harbor on Santa Catalina Island were dated to around 5000 years old (Porcasi 1998). Porcasi argues that these ceramic pieces are like those found at the Irvine site (CA-ORA-64) in Orange County and suggests they are evidence of a broad interaction sphere linking the southern Channel Islands with the desert interior. Boxt and Dillon (2013) argue that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) living at CA-LAN-2630, located on the campus of California State University, Long Beach, made ceramics prior to the post-Contact era from locally derived clays.

Intermediate Period (1050 BC-AD 600 / 3000-1350 BP)
During the Intermediate Period, the climate became warmer and drier, with lower rainfall, than the Milling Stone Period. The sea level rise slowed with surface temperatures lower than before; although paleoclimate data suggests that between circa (ca.) 3000 and 1700 BP, there was a period of heavier rainfall Early in the Intermediate Period, mortars and pestles replace milling stones and hand stones in artifact assemblages, which may signal a shift from the use of grass and hard seeds to acorn exploitation. During this time, there was an increase in the utilization of nearshore fish, sea mammal resources, and deep-water resources on the islands (Glassow 1980; King 2001, 2014; Tartaglia 1976). There was increased sedentism in the Intermediate Period, with villages being permanent or semi-permanent. Population growth resulted in intensive resource collection leading to the decline of local resources and the need to collect higher-cost resources. This is evident at Eel Point, where there is a focus on lower-ranked resources such as fish and small shellfish as is evident (Byrd and Raab 2007:223). The active management of terrestrial resources became evident on the mainland during this time, with intentionally set fires and intensive horticulture practices such as pruning, sowing, planting, and irrigation being used to increase the productivity of trees and plants (Arnold et al. 2004). This may have also occurred on the islands as well. Burial practices included flexed inhumations with large slate slabs or metates located on top of or near the head of the individual (Gamble and King 1997).

Late Prehistoric period (AD 600-1750 / 1350-200 BP)
Mason and Peterson divide the Late Prehistoric Period into two subdivisions: Late Prehistoric 1, 1350-650BP (AD 600-1300) and Late Prehistoric 2, 650-200 BP (AD 1300-1750). It is during the Late Prehistoric Period that the cultural manifestations observed in the ethnohistoric period begin to emerge. By AD 500, there is a change in the cultural manifestations seen in the archaeological record within Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) territory. This includes a change in interment practices from burial to cremation, dog burials, as well as a switch from ztwining to s-twining in basketry (Sutton 2009; Rozaire 1967). These features are considered the markers signaling the migration of Takic-speaking people from the desert to the coast, pushing 33 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 14
the Chumash to the north and the Yuman-speaking Kumeyaay people to the south. See the Ethnography section below for a description of the Takic language group which includes the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) language. Known as the “Shoshonean intrusion” (or Shoshonean Wedge) theory, it is argued that the Takic groups settled along the coast and immediately “got with the program” and imitated the cultural practices and adaptions used by the previous Hokan-speaking populations they supposedly displaced (Kowta 1969; Koerper 1979; Kroeber 1925; Moratto 1984:560; Sutton 2009).

The Late Prehistoric Period saw the emergence of complex social organization with ascribed status evinced by the presence of abundant grave goods in child burials (King 1982; Martz 1984). Starting at AD 800, there is evidence of the exchange of Santa Catalina Island soapstone vessels to the mainland (e.g., Malaga Cove) with craft specialization intensifying at the end of the period (Howard 2002).

There has been considerable debate regarding to what extent climate change contributed to the development of complex societies in Southern California, including the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) (Arnold 1992; Gamble 2005; Kennett and Kennett 2000; Koerper et al. 2002; Raab et al. 1995; Raab and Larson 1997). What is known is that new fishing strategies begin to be utilized by AD 500. These new practices include the development and use of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) ti’at, (tomool in Chumash), the sewn plank canoe (Arnold and Bernard 2005), and a new fishing kit which includes circular shell fishhooks manufactured from single pieces of abalone (Haliotis spp.), California mussel (Mytilus californianus), and Norris' top shell (Norrisia norrisi) (Strudwick 1986). Such a fishing kit was found at the Nursery site on San Clemente, consisting of a seagrass bag containing fishing tackle such as lithic drills, abraders, rib net-spacers, a bone knife and barbs, pry bars, abalone fishhooks and hook blanks, a steatite whale effigy, and serpentine sinkers (Bleitz and Salls 1993). Coupled together, these tools were used to obtain deep sea fish such as the broadbill swordfish, striped marlin, albacore, yellowfin tuna, bluefin tuna, blue shark, and shortfin mako (Arnold and Bernard 2005). Also, by AD 500–600 BC, the bow and arrow comes into the area and as a result, projectile points get smaller, although large points are still evident on the Channel Islands due to the continued used of spears on large marine mammals (Arnold and Bernard 2005).

Mission Period (AD 1769-1834)
Historic archaeologists identify the beginning of the Mission Period with the establishment of the first Spanish Mission in San Diego in 1769 and the settlement of Alta California by the Spanish.

Even though Vizcaino had explored the Pacific coast in 1602, the Spanish did not immediately settle Alta California. Beginning in 1566, Spanish galleons from Manila, Philippines brought Asian goods to Acapulco, Mexico. During these long and arduous voyages, ships lacked substantial food resources resulting in the death of crew members and eventual loss of ships (Corle 1949:37). To ensure a safe return, the Spanish government decided that ports needed to be 34 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 15
built in Alta California in order to re-supply the ships with fresh meat, fruits and vegetables (Corle 1949:32; James 1913:14). Additionally in 1767, Marques de Grimaldi, the Minister of State, told Jose de Gálvez, the Visitor-General of Mexico, that the Russians and French were encroaching on its Alta California territory (Archibald 1978:1; James 1913:14). As a result, King Carlos II of Spain gave the order to “occupy and fortify San Diego and Monterey for God and the King of Spain” to fight foreign claims to Spanish land (James 1913:16).

In 1769, Gaspar de Portolá led one of three groups to Alta California to establish Spanish settlements, or presidios, at San Diego and Monterey Bay (McCawley 1996:188). Accompanying Portolá was Junípero Serra and other Franciscan priests who sought to establish missions to convert the Native Americans they encountered. They established several missions, sustained by Indian labor, that supplied the presidios with subsistence goods.

Another factor that changed trade relations in southern California during the Mission period was the missions’ policy of ‘reducción’ (Webb 1983). The reduction of the Indian population in its initial settlement caused the fathers to look for more converts. The stability of the mission relied on the Indian population to make cloth, to cook, and to farm. As the population grew sparse, the fathers traveled further, past the mission lands, to gather new Indians to live in the missions and carry on the work.

ETHNOGRAPHY
The following section will provide an overview of the cultural patterns as recorded for the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and the Juaneño (Acjachemen). Although several anthropologists and ethnologists have collected information regarding the cultural practices, village location, and language of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is not as extensive as it is for other southern California Tribes. These collections were recovered under a “salvage ethnography” paradigm, predicated on the notion that the Tribes would soon vanish, and it was imperative to collect as much information about pre-Columbian Native languages and lifeways as possible for future study. Thus, scholars looked for Tribal members who had knowledge of, and still practiced, the uncorrupted tribal lifeways.

However, Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) communities and other California Tribes had been so decimated by years of colonial mission control, many who survived had been successfully converted into a Spanish/Mexican peasant labor force that spoke Spanish and practiced Catholicism. Scholars disregarded Tribal members that did not fit their preconceived notions of who a “pure” Indian was (Martinez 2010:216). As a result, there is a big hole in the ethnographic record on the use of the Los Cerritos Wetlands area as Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Juaneño (Acjachemen) community members who had that knowledge may have been overlooked.
35 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 16
GABRIELINO (GABRIELEÑO; TONGVA; KIZH)
Territory
As stated earlier, the study area is located within Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) territory (Appendix C,
Figure C - 5). Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) Traditional Territory included large portions of Los Angeles County, the northern part of Orange County, small sections of Riverside and San Bernardino counties as well as the four southern Channel Islands of Pimu (Santa Catalina), Santa Barbara, Kiinkepar (San Clemente), and Haraasgna (San Nicolas).

Their territory encompassed a number of ecological zones which affected their subsistence and settlement patterns. The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) would supplement the resources gathered near them with resources from other ecological zones by obtaining them either directly or through trade (Bean and Smith 1978). Various scholars have divided these ecological zones differently. McCawley divides southern California into the Interior Mountains and Foothills, Valleys and Prairies, Exposed Coast, Sheltered Coast, and the Southern Channel Islands zones (McCawley 1996). The Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex is located in the Exposed Coast ecological zone. The resources available in this ecological zone include shellfish, rays, sharks, and fish. On the other hand, Heizer and Elasser (1980; Appendix C, Figure C - 6) place the study area within their Foothill Ecological Culture Type and identify the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) as Foothill Hunters and Gatherers, Coastal Tidelands Collectors, Coastal Sea Hunters-Fishers, and Valley and Plains Gatherers. Appendix C, Figure C - 6 lists the resources that would have been available to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) in those ecological cultural types.

Origins
Much of the southern California archaeological literature argues that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) moved into southern California from the Great Basin around 4,000 BP, ‘wedging’ themselves between the Hokan-speaking Chumash, located to the north, and the Yumanspeaking Kumeyaay, located to the south (see Sutton 2009 for the latest discussion). This Shoshonean Wedge, or Shoshonean ‘intrusion’ theory, is counter to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community’s knowledge about their history and origins. Oral tradition states that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) have always lived in their traditional territory, with their emergence into this world occurring at Puvungna, located in Long Beach (Martinez and Teeter 2015:26).

Language
The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) language is classified as part of the Uto-Aztecan language family, under the Takic branch. It is now generally accepted that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) language is a stand-alone Takic language, distinct from the Cupan sub-group (Mithun 1999:539). Several Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) words lists, 36 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 17
descriptions of lifeways, and songs have been collected by ethnographers from various Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community members over the years: Hale (1846), Loew (1876), Reid (1852[1968]), Merriam (1907), and Harrington (1917-1930s).

Settlement Patterns
Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) life centered on the village; composed of paternally related extended families, lineages, and/or clans, typically numbering 50-100 people. Houses, called kiiy in Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh), were domed and circular with frames made from willow posts (or whale rib bones on the islands and along the coastline) covered with tule reed mats. Coastal kiiys had entryways that opened towards the sea with mats covering them. A large kiiy could hold up to three or four families and was perhaps 60 feet in diameter. Smaller homes were as little as 12 feet in diameter. Wind screens were usually adjacent to the kiiy and were used as open-air kitchens during fair weather. Large acorn granary baskets, sometimes coated with asphaltum and seated upon posted platforms, were also placed near the kiiys.

In addition to the habitation structures described above, other village structures included sweathouses, which were small semi-circular, semi-subterranean earth-covered buildings located near water to provide access for bathing, menstrual huts, and ceremonial open-aired enclosures, yoyovars, were located near chiefs’ houses and near the center of villages.

In addition to the permanent villages, the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) occupied temporary seasonal campsites that were used for a variety of activities such as hunting, fishing, and gathering plants (McCawley 1996:25). Hunting was primarily for rabbit and deer, while plant collection included acorns, buckwheat, chia, berries, and fruits. Coastal seasonal camps and camps near bays and estuaries were used to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl (Hudson 1971).

Leadership
Each village had a Tomyaar, a leader whose position was typically inherited paternally, who regulated the village’s religious and secular life. Each lineage had a leader that participated in the Council of Elders which in turn advised the Tomyaar. Through study of the personal names recorded in mission records and ethnohistorical information from other Southern California communities, King and Parsons (2014a:8-10) have identified a number Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) leadership roles that were not previously recognized. King and Parsons identified the title Chari as belonging to the town or settlement chief. The Nu was the bundle keeper, the person who protected sacred items that were bundled together, and the Paha (ceremonial assistant) was in charge of ceremonial preparation, including notifying people of the ceremony, carrying shell money between groups, and dividing money and food during ceremonies (Strong 1972:96). The Nu worked with the Kika, the household chief. The singer, Eacuc, was also known as a knowledge keeper.
37 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 18
Another important role in Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) society was the medicine person, known as a shaman in the anthropological literature. They were the doctors, therapists, philosophers, and intellectuals of the villages. Some Tomyaars were also influential medicine people in their own right (Kroeber 1925; Johnson 1962; Bean and Smith 1978; McCawley 1996).

Both clans and villages were exogamous and patrilocal (Reid 1852). Villages were autonomous but came together seasonally for harvests and other cooperative activities including ceremonies.

Ceremonial Life and Beliefs
Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) life was also organized around the celebration and observance of various rituals and ceremonies. These included rites of passage, village rites, seasonal ceremonies, and participation in the widespread Chingichngish religion (various spellings; Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996).

Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) concept of afterlife and burial practices came from Chingichngish’s instructions to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh). Upon death, it was believed that the heart of the person did not die, but was transported to Shiishonga, the land of the dead, located beyond Santa Catalina Island. If the deceased was a tomyaar or medicine person, they could reach Tokuupar or “heaven” or “sky” through the enactment of the proper rituals. For three days the community mourned, and the body was wrapped in a hide blanket or mat made of seagrass. After the mourning period, the body was carried to the village burial area.

Mainland Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) tended to conduct cremations, while the Island Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) adhered to flexed inhumation burial practice. The hands were placed across the breast, and the entire body was bound.

For those villages practicing cremation, the remains were either interred or disposed of to the east of the village. Grave offerings included seeds, otter skins, baskets, soapstone pots, bone and shell implements, and shell beads. The amount of grave goods reflected the person’s status. If the person held a leadership position, an item designating their office might also be placed with their body. Some interments featured dog burials placed above the corpse. The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) saw the worlds of the living and the dead to be parallel places; therefore, the items buried or burned with the deceased were intended to accompany that person into the afterworld where their status would be recognized by the items that accompanied them.

Graves were marked by baskets or rock slabs made of sandstone or slate. On San Nicholas Island, stone slabs decorated with ashpaltum would sometimes also be buried with the body. The living mourned for a year; the mourning period ended at the annual mourning ceremony conducted for all of those who had died in the past year (Bean and Smith 1978:545–546; McCawley 1996:155–158.)
38 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 19
Trade and Exchange Routes
The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) played an important role in the various trade routes that extended throughout the western United States. In the seminal study Power and Persistence, Bean et al. (1978) discussed the Pacific Ocean-Great Plains trade system and demonstrated that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh), Cahuilla, Panya (Halchidoma), Northern Pima and O’odham (Kohatk) were trade partners. The Santa Catalina Island Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) were the western anchor of the trade route with steatite items moving across the ocean via ti’ats, the mainland foot trails through the San Gorgonio Pass and into to Cahuilla territory. Today’s Interstate 10 freeway follows that trail (Bean et al. 1978:5-1). In addition to steatite from Santa Catalina Island, other trade items from Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) territory included abalone shell, olivella beads, asphaltum, sea otter pelts and salt (Figure 3; Dobyns 1984). Food such as dried fish, marine mammal meat and acorns were also traded (Meighan 1959:391; Rosen 1980:27; McCawley 1996:79, 2002:47). In return the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) received obsidian, furs, ceramic vessels, buckskins and other items.

Figure 3. Commodities Traded from Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) Territory to/from the Kohatk (O’odham) on the Gila River (from Bean et al. 1978) Commodity Ga- C2 - Pan- Gila Kohatk
brie - hui-- ya River
lino lla · Pima
Steatite -__ .., --C--
Abalone Shell ----. --C--
Olivella Beads -'.""- .. -- ➔ --C--
Dried Fish ----.,.

Dried Wild Mutton --C-- •---- Dried Venison --C-- •---- Sea Otter Pelts -- -~ --CSale 4!.i --- --C-- IL- - - ii Asphalcum ----- ---., --cAcorns --C -'> ,,,_ -·• --c- --C-- Wild Gourd Seeds --C- -
Seeds c-- •--- C-- e----
Buckskins C-- C- - ~----
Deer Tallow C-- ,C--- ~-c- .i-C--
Obsidian c-- Furs c-- Reci Paine c-- --c ... --C
Yellow Ochre c-- Mai~e C-·-
Squash C--
Gourds C- -
Turquoise C--
Stone A.,es C- - .s.- --
Saguaro Syrup C-? <- ?- - •-C- • -C- - ci. -C --
Ce ramic Vessels C-? <- ?-- <- ?- - ~-c-- •-C- -
Beans - - C-""" --C
Pumpkins --C-a. --C
Melons --C-;, --C
Co tton Fiber --C-• --C
39 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 20
Gates et al. (2013) connects Tongva territory to the Pacific to Rio Grande Trails Landscape that includes three major travel corridors from/to the Southern California coast (Appendix C, Figure C - 7). The trade route closest to the study area is the route that follows the US Interstate 10 freeway.

Village Use Areas and Locations
Based on research conducted on Santa Catalina Island and the mainland, the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community recognizes that in addition to the area used for habitation, i.e., houses and cooking areas, there are several other areas used outside the habitation area that are still considered part of the village (Posadas et al. 2011). These village use areas include short term camp sites, subsistence sites (e.g., hunting, gathering, fishing), sweat and ceremonial houses, quarries, tool production areas (e.g., lithic reduction), sacred sites, burial sites/cemeteries, and rites of passage areas (McCawley 1996:25). These village use areas are usually within 3-5 miles of the main habitation area. As a result, for the traditional cultural landscape study detailed later in this report, a review of archaeological sites within 3 miles of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex was completed to identify these associated village use areas.

There are two villages that lie within three miles of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex.

Puvungna, located to the north, was, and continues to be, an important ceremonial center (in Tongva puvu = big ball of people, ngna = place of) for the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Juaneño (Acjachemen). Portions of the National Register for Historic Places (NRHP)- listed Puvungna Indian Villages lay on the campuses of California State University, Long Beach, the Veterans Affairs Long Beach Healthcare System (VALBHS), and Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens. Motuucheyngna village has been identified on a portion of the former Hellman Ranch property, to the east and outside the Southern LCW Project area.

Motuucheyngna was reported to mean flea (Harrington 1917-1930: R104 F24). More detailed information on these two villages is located in the Traditional Cultural Landscape section.

The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) Community Today Even with the devastating effects of disease, colonization, forced labor, and other genocidal activities perpetrated against them, 2,493 people in California (2,903 nationwide) identified themselves as Gabrielino on the 2010 United States Census; a testament to their survival (United States Census 2013a and 2013b). There are currently seven different Tribess or and Tribal organizations that some community members belong to: the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, the Gabrielino-Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, the Gabrielino Tongva Nation, the Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, the GabrielinoTongva Tribe, the Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation and the Ti'at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu. , although some Gabrielino people choose not to belong to any group. None of the groups are recognized by the United States federal government; however, five groups have filed letters of intent with the Office of Federal Acknowledgement (Office of Federal Acknowledgement 40 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 21
2013). In 1994, the California State Assembly and Senate jointly recognized the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians’ territory as encompassing the entire Los Angeles Basin area and the Channel Islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicholas, San Clemente, and Santa Barbara from Topanga in the west, to Laguna in the south, and to the base of the San Bernardino Mountains in the east (Resolution Chapter 146, Statutes of 1994 Assembly Joint Resolution 96).

Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community members continue to fight against the misconception that they are extinct (Martinez et al. 2014; Teeter and Martinez 2009). To combat these uninformed notions, Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community members work with various public entities and private philanthropic groups to educate the public about the deep history of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) within the Los Angeles area and their continued existence within a thriving metropolis. Additionally, community members are working with linguists to revitalize the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) language (Marquez 2014). 41 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 22
Figure 4. A portion of the 1937/1938 Kirkman-Harriman Pictorial and Historical Map of Los Angeles County showing the County as it existed in 1860 with the Project area overlain p A..CIFfC
I~.?.,~,:~~~ I
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA 11 11 Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex City of Seal Beach Orange County, CA
0 0 2.5

I I I I
I :200,000

2.5 5 Miles

I I I I N
5 Kilometers

I I I A
I in = 16,667 tl
42 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 23
JUANEÑO (ACJACHEMEN)
2 Territory
The Project area is within the traditional homeland of the Juaneño (Acjachemen) (Appendix C, Figure C - 8). The Acjachemen speak a language that is part of the Takic language family. The concept of territory is a complex one that carries distinct meanings within native people’s perceptions, and for archeologists and researchers working within the European scholarship tradition. The European tradition favors a view of territory derived from clearly delineated boundaries and surveyed and fenced property lines. A traditional native view of territory is generally broader and more dynamic, accounting for various ways land has been used by many people, or simultaneously by different groups of people. With that in mind, the Acjachemen territory spans from coastal Long Beach to the north, Camp Pendleton to the south and includes all of Orange County as well as parts of western Riverside County (see Appendix C, Figure C - 8). At the arrival of the Euroamericans (1769) in California, the Acjachemen were living primarily in what we now know as Orange County, but their aboriginal territory extended as far south as San Onofre Creek in San Diego County and east to the ridge of the Santa Ana Mountains in Riverside County, an area of about 600 square miles in size. The Acjachemen believe that their ancestors have lived here from the beginning of time. Debate and controversy continually surround the gap between scientific theory and Acjachemen beliefs surrounding the time frame when the Acjachemen first inhabited the area. The population of the Acjachemen tribe in 1769 has been estimated at about 4,000 people. The ancestors shared boundaries with four other tribes: the Gabrielino [Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh] to the north, the Serrano and Luiseno to the east and south, and the Kumeyaay to the south.

The Acjachemen territory and even particular properties, such as mountains and rivers, are recorded in their memories, from traditional migration and creation stories that were told and retold, and songs that have been sung and danced for generations. Such features as special rocks, oak groves, fishing places, mountain ranges and places from where one can see the sun rise and set form a mental image, or map, of their homeland that combines history and geography into a whole body of traditional cultural knowledge.

Community Life
The Acjachemen depended upon gathering, hunting and fishing. Their lives centered on their permanent villages, with ready access to their specific hunting, fishing and collecting areas where they might stay for part of a season. Some of these areas were quite close by, but others were a day or more of travel from their villages. Individual families would travel inland or to the seashore at certain times of the year and set up temporary camps for a few days or weeks. When they returned to their village, they would carry baskets filled with the food they had collected.

Houses were typically conical in shape and thatched with locally available plant materials. The 2 The Juaneño (Acjachemen) ethnographic section was contributed by Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager and Cultural Resource Director for the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation. 43 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 24
principal house, or kiicha, belonged to the chief. It was usually the largest because he was apt to have a large family. Frequently, the chief had more than one wife, and relatives living nearby.

Work areas were often shaded by rectangular brush-covered roofs (ramada). Each village had a ceremonial structure in the center called a wamkish enclosed by a circular fence where all religious activities were performed (Bean and Shipek 1978:553).

While the Acjachemen were not a nomadic people, if there was a serious drought, or their population grew too rapidly, they would sometimes relocate their village to another location.

Archeological and ethnographic evidence clearly supports such movements. The Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Ethnographic Study, prepared by David Earle in 2020 references Boscana’s recounting of an ancestral migration story of the Acjachemen. “A chief named Oyaison had been chief of a village at Los Nietos Valley..had migrated with his eldest daughter, Corrone, to the vicinity of San Juan Capistrano…The people that migrated under chief Oyaison had found people already living in the San Juan Capistrano area, and the migrants together with the original population settled a total of fifteen towns in the region. (Harrington 1934:57-62, Johnson and O’Neil 2001:17)” (Earle 2020).

Religion
The hereditary village chief (Nò-t) held an administrative position that combined control of religious, economic and spiritual powers (Boscana 1933:43) Religion was an important aspect of their society. Religious ceremonies included rites of passage at puberty and mourning rituals (Kroeber 1925:636-647). At puberty, boys and girls underwent initiation rituals during which they were taught about the powerful beings governing them and punishing any infractions of the rules (Sparkman 1908:221-225). They were taught to respect their elders, give them food, to listen to them, and to refrain from anger. The boys’ ceremony included drinking datura, dancing, and teaching the songs and rituals. The girls' ceremony included advice and instructions and necessary knowledge for village life, roasting in warm sand and rock painting (Bean and Shipeck 1978:555). Death is a major ritual for the Acachemen/ Luiseno. They observe at least a dozen mourning ceremonies. The Acjachemen participated in the widespread Chingichngish religion.

There are several creation stories that the Acjachemen believe, inland and a coastal creation.

Below is an excerpt of one of the inland creation stories:
“And so it is…before this world was as we know it today, there existed one above and another below. The two were brother and sister. The one above represented the heavens and the one below the earth. In time they were united and from their union came other beings full of life.

This included rocks and stones of all kinds, particularly chert, for their arrows, trees and shrubs, herbs and grasses, and all kinds of animals. These were the First People, the Kaamalam. 44 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 25
After Earth had given birth to all the things in the world, she brought forth as her last child, one whom they called Wiyóot. Wiyóot’s name signifies ‘something which has taken root’, denoting that his power and authority would extend over the earth as the largest trees spread their roots in every direction. Wiyóot had children, both male and female, and although he and his children were animate, they were not people like we know them today. As Wiyóot’s descendants multiplied, the piece of earth his mother had given birth to continued to increase in size, always from the north to the south. And as the number of people increased, so did the size and shape of the earth.”
Trade
Like many regions in California, the Acjcahemen homeland lies in a rich environment with an abundant variety of natural resources. Acjachemen relied on local materials to create tools, but also participated in trade with other California Indians, by trading their surplus in shell beads, mammal skins, salt dried fish, seaweed, and asphaltum (tar) with their inland neighbors for a variety of goods and luxury items.

The Juaneño (Acjachemen) Today
Despite the history of genocide, the devastating effects of the mission system, the Mexican period, and the American period, the Acjachemen have persisted. They are a vibrant community that continues to practice their traditional and cultural ways of life. Currently, there are three bands of Juaneño/Acjachemen. The Acjachemen are a non-federally recognized tribe. In 1993, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation was jointly recognized by the California State Assembly and Senate as the original inhabitants of Orange County and parts of Los Angeles County, to parts of Riverside County, and to parts of Camp Pendleton (Resolution Chapter 121, Statutes of 1993 Assembly Joint Resolution 48). The Acjachemen are active in preservation of their language and sacred sites.

HISTORIC SETTING

CITY OF SEAL BEACH
The Project area is located within the boundaries of the City of Seal Beach. The history of what would become Seal Beach began soon after the founding of Anaheim in 1857. At that time, the Anaheim Landing Company constructed a port for the Santa Ana Valley known as Anaheim Landing. Located on a small bay where Anaheim Creek emptied into the Pacific Ocean (now Seal Beach), the port consisted of a wharf and warehouse. Despite multiple disasters due to the treacherous water, coastal trade continued at Anaheim Landing for approximately 15 years (Glasgow 2021).

In 1875, the arrival of the railroad in Anaheim provided an easier and safer shipping alternative 45 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 26
to the Landing. It was also during this period that the beaches surrounding the Landing had become a popular summer vacation location, with local newspapers reporting particularly large crowds numbering in the hundreds.

In 1901, Philip Stanton sold a plot of land which he had purchased from the Hellman Ranch to John C. Ord. After hiring a team of 30 mules, Ord relocated his Los Alamitos based general store to his new property at what is now the southwest corner of Main Street and Electric Avenue in Seal Beach. The Ord Company would buy additional property located at the eastern end of Anaheim Landing, which was later subdivided ca. 1903 (Alioto 2005).

On October 25, 1915, with a population of 250, the town of Seal Beach incorporated but under the name Bay City. The name was changed to Seal Beach shortly after incorporation in order to avoid confusion with San Francisco, which was also known as Bay City. In 1935, the site of Anaheim landing was designated a California Historical Landmark (Office of Historic Preservation 1935).

Substantial change would come to Seal Beach during World War II as the U.S. Navy purchased most of the land around Anaheim Landing to build the United States Navy’s Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. Construction of the Naval Weapons Station resulted in the demolition of 200 homes and the dredging of a 15-foot channel. Use of the water of Anaheim Bay is currently shared between the Navy and civilian craft (Glasgow 2021).

RANCHO LOS ALAMITOS
The Project area is within the boundaries of the former Rancho Los Alamitos, previously a contributor of the much larger Rancho Los Nietos (Appendix C, Figure C - 9).

In 1790, Spanish soldier Manuel Nieto was granted a 300,000-acre tract by his former military commander Pedro Fages (then recently appointed governor of California; Jurmain et al. 2011).

When Manuel Nieto died in 1804, his massive landholdings, then known as Rancho Los Nietos, passed to his widow and children.

In 1834, Rancho Los Nietos was subdivided into five ranchos and one smaller ranch amongst Nieto’s heirs: Rancho Los Coyotes, Rancho Las Bolsas, Rancho Cerritos, Rancho Santa Gertrudes, Rancho Alamitos, and Palo Alto (smaller ranch). Juan Jose Nieto, the eldest son, received the 28,027-acre Rancho Los Alamitos in addition to the 48,806-acre Rancho Los Coyotes. In 1837, Juan Nieto sold Rancho Los Alamitos and lived on Rancho Los Coyotes (Dixon 2004). On July 12, 1842, a deed of sale was issued to Abel Stearns for the “six square leagues of Rancho Los Alamitos.” Just prior to Stearns’ purchase of the rancho, an inventory was taken which documented the existence of three adobe buildings on the property. It is not known 46 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 27
what improvements Stearns made to the ranch or the preexisting adobes during his period of ownership (Jurmain et al. 2011).

Following the conclusion of the Mexican-American war and the subsequent annexation of California to the United States, the U.S. Land Commission confirmed Stearns’ title to Rancho Los Alamitos in 1855. Despite Stearns’ monumental success as a cattle rancher, which made him the richest man in Southern California, a series of natural disasters coupled with an economic recession resulted in the collapse of his cattle empire. Between 1860 and 1870, catastrophic flooding followed by a period of drought resulted in the ruin of many ranches and farms within Southern California; up to 70 percent of the cattle in Los Angeles County were dead from drought by 1864. Thus ended the reign of the great cattle barons of California (Jurmain et al. 2011).

In 1865, Stearns was taken to court for failure to repay a $20,000 loan against Rancho Los Alamitos. Due to Stearns’ dire financial situation, he was unable to raise the funds required to pay back the loan and accrued interest. As a result, Stearns lost Rancho Los Alamitos to his creditor Michael Reese. In 1871, a portion of Rancho Los Alamitos was leased by John Bixby of the successful American ranching Bixby family. Due to the severe regional drought, the sheep ranching tenants of Rancho Los Alamitos were willing to sublease their land to Bixby to sustain themselves. Bixby saw the potential of the rancho’s land to sustain agriculture and dairy cows (Jurmain et al. 2011).

In 1881, the entirety of the 26,395-acre Los Alamitos rancho was offered for sale for $125,000 following the death of Michael Reese. Bixby, who had already been leasing a large portion of the rancho, entered into a three-way partnership with Isaias W. Hellman and the J. Bixby & Co. and together obtained an $80,000 mortgage of the rancho. They began operations that same year under the name J.W. Bixby & Co. (Jurmain et al. 2011).

Taking advantage of the soaring profit of wheat exports to England due to severe crop failures across Europe, Bixby used much of the rancho to grow wheat for export during the 1870s and 1880s. The size of Rancho Los Alamitos was such that tenant farming was introduced in 1878.

This system of sharecropping would continue to grow and by 1890 nearly 18% of farmers in California were tenant farmers. Also of note, by 1890, a substantial population increase in Southern California led Bixby to notice the shifting value and use of land. J.W. Bixby & Co decided to capitalize on the new trend of budding beachside communities and developed the townsite he called Alamitos Beach on 5,000 acres of the seaside portion of Rancho Los Alamitos (Jurmain et al. 2011).

In May of 1887, John Bixby died suddenly at age thirty-nine from what is believed to be appendicitis. As a result of his death, Rancho Los Alamitos was divided amongst its surviving 47 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 28
co-owners. Each recipient received 7,200 acres: J. Bixby & Co. received the inland section, Hellman received the section of land along the coast, and the remaining central area went to John Bixby’s widow and children (Jurmain et al. 2011).

ISAIAS WOLF HELLMAN (OCTOBER 3, 1842-APRIL 9, 1920)
A Jewish immigrant from Bavaria, Isaias Wolf Hellman came to the United States in 1859 when he was 17 years old and immediately found work at a clothing store (Los Angeles Times 1920).

In 1868, the Farmers & Merchants National Bank (the second bank in Los Angeles) opened its doors for business with Isaias Wolf Hellman as one of its co-founders. Known as a real estate magnate, Hellman had begun purchasing multiple properties in Southern California and pursued a successful career as a financier of local ranchos (including Rancho Los Alamitos) and wealthy landowners (such as James Irvine).

Hellman’s influence grew and in 1887, the Los Angeles Clearinghouse Association was formed and he was elected President. In 1890, Hellman undertook the rehabilitation of the Nevada Bank of San Francisco which later merged with Wells Fargo. Isaias W. Hellman spent the majority of his working life in San Francisco where he died on April 19, 1920 at the age of seventy-eight (Los Angeles Times 1920).

HELLMAN RANCH
For 50 years, the majority of the work done on the Hellman Ranch used horse-drawn equipment.

A single steam-powered excavator was used to excavate the many drainage ditches found on the property, including the Hellman Channel (Tyler 2018).

This ranch was used to provide feed for beef cattle the Hellman Company raised on a 35,000 acre ranch (Nacimiento Ranch) near Paso Robles, California. Cattle would be transported from the Nacimiento Ranch to the Seal Beach ranch to graze and then shipped to the Los Angeles Market. The land was divided into large parcels which were farmed by immigrant farmers who produced cash crops such as sugar beets. Support structures were constructed for the farmers which included homes, wells, barns and other ancillary buildings (Tyler 2018).

The rearing of cattle at the Hellman Ranch ceased during World War II when the U.S. Navy acquired most of the farmland in Seal Beach for the construction of what is now the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. This takeover by the Navy included large portions of Hellman’s land. As a result, the Hellman Company pivoted use of the land from cattle to agriculture. In 1961, 541 acres of the ranch’s best farmland was sold to the developers of Rossmoor Leisure World. Following the sale, the old ranch buildings were abandoned and were eventually sold to an aerospace company (Tyler 2018).
48 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 29

LOS ANGELES BASIN OIL INDUSTRY
In 1920, I.W. Hellman, President of the Los Alamitos Land Company, died and was replaced by rancher and co-owner of the company Fred H. Bixby. Bixby leased tracts of land owned by the Alamitos Land Company to Standard Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Company, and the Marland Oil Company. Roads were constructed through the Project area and foundations for the oil derricks were set on driven pilings. In 1926, the Marland Oil Company began drilling with great success on the Bixby Lease (part of the Seal Beach Oil Field) now known as the Synergy Oil Field and that same year went into full commercial oil production. Production of oil at the Seal Beach Oil Field reached its peak in 1927, averaging 70,000 barrels per day (ESA 2019).

Oil extraction from the Seal Beach Oil Fields eventually declined post World War II with major issues such as damage to multiple wells (518) from earthquakes and subsidence. By the mid1970s, 223 oil wells were still in use but produced far less then offshore drilling facilities in San Pedro Bay (ESA 2019).

PROJECT AREA HISTORY
The Project area overlaps with the property boundaries and history of Hellman Ranch and the production of oil in association with the Los Angeles Basin’s oil industry.

Based on the earliest known USDA aerial photographs of the Project area, in 1927 the Hellman Channel is clearly visible in its current configuration; however, this aerial photograph shows that the channel continued southeast and then turned northeast at the eastern end of the Project area boundary (Appendix D,
Figure D - 1). There are also two water retention ponds and multiple dirt access roads leading to and from the Project area.

In a 1928 USDA aerial photograph, two large tanks are visible near the northern center of the Project area (Appendix D,
Figure D - 2). What is believed to be two additional large water retention ponds are visible adjacent to an access road near the northeast side of the Project area. In a 1938 USDA photograph, multiple small structures/objects are visible at the westernmost end of the Project area near an access road (Appendix D,
Figure D - 3). By 1952, the majority of what is now 1st Street (which crosses into the Project area from the west) is visible in most of its current configuration (Appendix D, Figure D - 4). A large structure (previously identified by ESA in 2019 as LCWA-CRE-004-H), is located on the State Lands [Commission] Parcel site (ESA 2019). While only the concrete foundation currently remains, ESA determined the building was related to the Airport Club Marina Palace and was initially constructed in 1950. The building was a large Quonset hut which was used as a gambling house and music venue (ESA 2019). 49 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 30
Between 1962 and 1965, the 90 degree bend at the northernmost point of the Hellman Channel is altered to its current configuration (Appendix D,
Figure D - 5 and Appendix D,
Figure D - 6). Sometime between 1965 and 1974, a long portion of the northeast/southwest access road near the center of the Project area was removed (Appendix D, Figure D - 7).

In 1974, two large rectangular water retention basins are present (which remain today) at the western end of the Project area, adjacent to 1st Street. It is assumed these basins are associated with the nearby oil fields which are outside the boundaries of the Project area. The structures located at the western end of the Project area (LCWA-CRE-004-H) are no longer present. Only the concrete foundation is visible. There are no notable alterations within the Project area between 1974 and present day (Appendix D,
Figure D - 8 and Appendix D,
Figure D - 9).

RECORDS SEARCH

CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM
For the Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), ESA archaeologist Vanessa Ortiz completed a search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton on May 19, 2019. The records search was for the entire Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex which included the proposed Project area as well as a one-mile radius.

Cogstone archaeologist Logan Freeberg requested a second and expanded records search from the SCCIC on March 23, 2021. The updated records search focused on identifying cultural sites within a three-mile buffer around the entire Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex. SCCIC Assistant Coordinator Michelle Galaz completed the search on April 30, 2021. Results of the record search indicate that 13 previous studies have been completed within the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex while an additional 99 studies have been completed previously within a one-mile radius of the Los Cerritos Complex (Appendix E, Table E - 1).

Three prehistoric cultural resources have been recorded within the Southern LCW Project area:

P-30-000256 (Landing Hill #1), P-30-000258 (Landing Hill #3), and P-30-000260. Outside of the Southern LCW Project area, a total of 350 cultural resources have been previously 50 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 31
documented within the 3-mile radius from the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex area. These consist of 30 cultural resources within 0 – 0.25 miles, 56 cultural resources within 0.25 – 0.5 miles, 34 cultural resources within 0.5 – 1 miles, 121 cultural resources within 1 – 2 miles and 109 cultural resources within 2 – 3 miles of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex area (Appendix F, Table F – 1).

P-30-000256 (LANDING HILL #1)
P-30-000256 was recorded as a prehistoric habitation site with milling stones located on Landing Hill above the coastal plain and tidal flats of Alamitos and Anaheim Bays, and close to food sources. The site was surface collected for many years prior to being recorded and much of it has been destroyed by development (McKinney 1969a based on information from Redwine 1959).

P-30-000258 (LANDING HILL #3)
P-30-000258 was recorded as a prehistoric habitation site that covered the highest of the small knolls on Landing Hill. Numerous chipped stone and ground stone artifacts were identified on the surface including 60 manos, 13 mortar fragments, 16 hammerstones, and a broken and mended sandstone bowl. This site has been largely destroyed by housing development (McKinney 1969b based on information from Redwine 1959).

P-30-000260
P-30-000260 was a prehistoric archaeological site that covered a small flat on the edge of Landing Hill. It is described as a seasonal camp marked mainly by shell remains and fragmented ground and chipped stone artifacts (McKinney 1969c based on information from Redwine 1959).

OTHER SOURCES
In addition to the SCCIC records search, a variety of sources were consulted in July 2021 to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Project area. Sources included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Built Environment Resource Database (BERD), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) (Table 2). Specific information about the Project area, obtained from historic-era maps and aerial photographs, is also presented in the Project area History section.
51 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 32
Table 2. Additional Sources Consulted
Source Results
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Negative
Historic USGS Topographic Maps The earliest USGS topographic quadrangle maps of the Project area are the 1886 Los Bolsas and 1896
Downey (both 1:62,500), which show the Project area
as a wetland with improved roads close to its eastern
border (Appendix G, Figure G - 1.) Little change is
depicted until 1935, when the Los Alamitos
(1:31,680) map shows a road in the south portion of
the Project area (Appendix G, Figure G - 2). The San
Gabriel River has not yet been channelized. The 1941
Las Bolsa and 1942 Downey (both 1:31,680) USGS
topographic quadrangles show additional dirt roads
and three buildings within the Project area (Appendix
G, Figure G - 3). Depictions on USGS quadrangle
maps change little to the present except for the 1974
Los Alamitos (1:24,000) USGS topographic
quadrangle, based on an aerial photograph, and shows
additional small roads, two larger retaining basins,
and features encircled by roads that may be smaller
retaining basins.

Historic US Department of Agriculture Aerial
Photographs
Per the earliest known USDA aerial photographs, in
1927 (NETROnline 1927) there are multiple access
roads visible within the Project area boundaries. Due
to the poor quality of the photograph, observation of
additional built environment is limited. In 1927, the
Hellman Channel is clearly visible in its present
location and configuration. Multiple dirt access roads
are present, leading to and from the Project area. At
least two large tanks are present at the northern center of the Project area. At least three water retention
ponds are also visible.

The 1952 USDA historic aerial photograph shows a
large structure (previously identified by ESA in 2019
as LCWA-CRE-004-H) located on a State Lands
[Commission] Parcel site (NETROnline 1952).

While only the concrete foundation remains, ESA
determined the building was related to the Airport
Club Marina Palace and was initially constructed in
1950. The building was a large 32uonset hut which
was used as a gambling house and music venue (ESA
2019).

The 1974 USDA historic aerial photograph shows
two water retention basins in place (NETROnline
1974). The features remain today. It is assumed
these basins are associated with the nearby oil fields
which are outside the boundaries of the Project area.

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Negative Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) Negative
California Historical Landmarks (CHL) Negative
California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) Negative 52 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 33
Source Results
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land
Office Records
Table 3. Abel Stearns; 1874; Mexican Land Grant;
Accession No. CACAAA 084787; Township 5 South,
Range 12 West, Sections 11, 12 and 14; as part of
27143-acre land grant.

Local Registers (Historical Societies/Archives) There is currently no active historical society in Seal Beach. Based on information found on the social
media page for the Seal Beach Historical Society the
organization is defunct and the whereabouts of its
documentary holdings is unknown.

Table 3. Land Patents
Name(s) Year Accession Number Type T; R; Section
Abel Stearns 1874 CACAAA084787 Serial Patent T: 5S; R: 12W, Sections 11, 12 and 14 Abel Stearns was one of the richest and most influential citizens of Los Angeles during his lifetime. Born in Massachusetts in 1799, he eventually made his way to California and settled in Los Angeles around 1833. Mr. Stearns made a large amount of money in trade and eventually purchased large swaths of real estate including Ranchos Los Alamitos, Las Bolas, La Laguna de Los Angeles and half interest in Los Coyotes. In 1849 he was a member of the first Constitutional Convention representing the district of Los Angeles. Mr. Stearns became one of the largest land and cattle owners in California. His wife, Dona Arcadia, who was the daughter of Don Juan Bandini, inherited the entire estate upon his death in 1871 (Barrows 1899).

SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex for the PEIR in 2019. The NAHC responded that the search was positive but did not specifically identify the Sacred Land (Appendix H). Cogstone did not request an additional SFL search as Anthony Morales of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians identified that the sacred lands were the village of Puvungna which was nominated to the Sacred Lands file on November 19, 2019, and the village of Motuucheyngna which was nominated on May 9, 2019.

TRIBAL COORDINATION AND INTERVIEWS

TRIBAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Consultation with Native American Tribes under AB 52 as well as other potentially interested Tribes was conducted for the PEIR (Section 3.15, ESA 2020). As a result of that process, a 53 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 34
Tribal Advisory Group (TAG) was created to collaborate first, with all tribes that consulted with LCWA through the AB 52 process for the PEIR, and potentially second, other interested Tribes, to engage tribal perspectives early on and throughout planning development, and to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into restoration designs. Nine Tribes were invited to participate in TAG meetings (Table 4; Appendix I). The Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation was not part of the original AB 52 consultation for the PEIR as they had been inactive for several years but are now included for their knowledge of the area.

Table 4. Tribes invited to TAG
Tribe
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Romero* Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu
*Teresa Romero has been replaced as Chairwoman by Heidi Lucero as of July 10, 2021.

The first TAG meeting was held on May 25, 2021, via Zoom. Four Tribal participants representing four Tribes attended (the Gabrieleno Shoshone Tribe, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, and Gabrielino-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians). Participants were provided an overview of the purpose and goals of the TAG, information on the Southern LCW Restoration Project, results of the cultural resources records search, and information on the cultural landscape study of the greater Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex. After the meeting, minutes of the TAG meeting were prepared by LCWA and sent to representatives of the nine Tribes via email.

During the first TAG meeting, Tribal representatives requested an in-person field visit. On July 23, 2021, LCWA staff and consultants met with five Tribal representatives and three California Coastal Commission staff members (
Figure 5; Appendix J). Prior to the meeting, Tribal representatives were provided a list and map of the prehistoric sites within a 3-mile buffer around the Los Cerritos Complex and information about interviews to be conducted for the TCL study. Hard copies of these documents were made available to site visit participants, who walked the Southern LCW Restoration Project area as LCWA representatives provided information about the proposed project. Tribal members asked 54 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 35
questions and provided feedback on the proposed restoration plan. Detailed comments are summarized in the Tribal Feedback section below.

TRIBAL INTERVIEWS
To better understand the Gabrielino’s (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Juaneño’s (Acjachemen) relationship to the Los Cerritos Wetlands, saltwater marshes, and the greater cultural landscape encompassing the Los Cerritos Wetlands, including the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna, Cogstone conducted interviews with Tribal members recommended by Tribal representatives.

Figure 5. Meeting with LCWA. Coastal Commission, and TAG on July 23, 2021.

Interviews were conducted in conjunction with UCLA’s “Diverse Perspectives on Water” project. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the “Diverse Perspectives on Water” project is investigating how Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Tataviam viewed/views water in the past, present, and future in Los Angeles County. Prior to each interview, each interviewee was provided an Interview Consent Form and list of possible interview questions (Appendix K).

UCLA staff, Dr. Jessica Cattelino and Sedonna Goeman-Shulsky, conducted digital video recording of the interviews of four of the interviewees while Cogstone staff recorded interviews via digital audio recorder and took digital photographs. Each participant was provided an honorarium for their participation.
55 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 36
Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority staff conducted an interview with Matt Teutimez, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, via Zoom. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation’s history and stories are not interchangeable with the history of other tribes interviewed in this study.

The Lawrence de Graaf Center for Oral and Public History at the California State University, Fullerton transcribed the digital audio interviews.

Copies of the interview transcripts, photos and interview audio and video will be provided to all interviewees. The interview transcripts, photos and video may be donated to the Graaf Center for Oral and Public History, upon consent of participants. Five Tribal members were interviewed ( Table 5).

Table 5. Tribal members interviewed
Name Tribe Date Location
Cindi Alvitre Ti’at
Society/Traditional
Council of Pimu
August 14, 2021 Gum Grove Park,
Seal Beach, CA
Mercedes Dorame Gabrielino Tongva
Indians of California
Tribal Council
August 14, 2021 Gum Grove Park,
Seal Beach, CA
Craig Torres Ti’at
Society/Traditional
Council of Pimu
August 28, 2021 Southern LCW
Project area, Seal
Beach, CA
Nicholas Rocha Gabrielino Shoshone
Nation
August 28, 2021 Southern LCW
Project area, Seal
Beach, CA
Matt Teutimez Gabrieleño Band of
Mission Indians –
Kizh Nation
October 7, 2021 Via Zoom
Rocha, Torres, and Alvitre were also given a tour of the Southern LCW Project area by D.

Martinez.

Cindi Alvitre
Ms. Alvitre is Director of the Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu and has been an educator and artist activist for over three decades. She served as the first woman chair of the Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council and in 1985, she and Lorene Sisquoc co-founded the Mother Earth Clan, a collective of Indian women who created a model for cultural and environmental 56 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 37
education, with a particular focus on traditional art. In the late 1980s, she co-founded the Ti’at Society sharing in the renewal of the ancient maritime practices of the coastal/island Tongva, extending into the public realm as participants in the World Festival of Sacred Music and Moompetam, the American Indian Festival at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach.

Cindi is currently a professor in American Indian Studies and the NAGPRA Coordinator for California State University, Long Beach.

Mercedes Dorame
Ms. Dorame is a Tongva artist and currently visiting faculty at CalArts. She is the daughter of Robert Dorame, Chair of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council. As an artist, she calls on her Tongva ancestry to engage the problematics of (in)visibility and ideas of cultural construction. As a Native American monitor, she observed construction at the Hellman Ranch site, located to the east of the Southern LCW Restoration Project and at the Playa Vista/Ballona wetlands. Dorame’s work is in the permanent collections of the Hammer Museum, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, The Triton Museum, The Allen Memorial Art Museum, The de Saisset Museum, The Montblanc Foundation Collection, and The Phoebe A. Hearst Museum.

Craig Torres
Mr. Torres is an Tongva artist and cultural educator descended from the indigenous communities of the Yaavetam (Los Angeles) and Komiikravetam (Santa Monica Canyon). He is a member of the Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu. As a Tongva cultural educator he has taught at many schools, culture and nature centers, museums as well as other governmental agencies on Tongva history, culture and contemporary issues. He is an ongoing consultant at Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens in Long Beach, working with the Tongva program that he helped develop. He has also been involved with the Chia Café Collective which provides cooking demos and classes with California native plants and provided education on the importance of preserving native plants, habitats and landscapes for future generations (Drake et al. 2016). He is also an advocate of “indigenizing” public and residential landscapes to California native plants and raising the public’s awareness of drought and water issues. As an artist, he derives his inspiration from his Tongva cultural heritage. He works in digital media as a graphic designer, mixed media as well as utilized some of his designs as inspiration for community collaborative “sacred art” installations.

Nicholas Rocha
Mr. Rocha is currently the Chair of the Gabrielino Shoshone Nation and is on the cultural advisory board for Anahuacalmecac International Baccalaureate World School in Los Angeles.

His mother, Vera Rocha, was chief of the Gabrielino Shoshone Nation while his father was its spiritual leader. The Rocha family has been involved with Native America activism and politics for many years including bringing a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles in 1996 along with 57 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 38
the Wetlands Action Network/Ballona Valley Preservation League/Earth Trust Foundation, and Friends of Sunset Park to protect the Ballona Wetlands, a salt marsh located in west Los Angeles.

Matthew Teutimez
Mr.Teutimez is a biologist and has both a Bachelor and Master of Science in Biology from California State University of Long Beach. He brings his indigenous perspective to his projects, melding his educational background and traditional ecological knowledge passed down from generation to generation. Mr. Teutimez’s father, John Teutimez Jr. is a tribal elder, and he is cousin to current Tribal Chairperson Andrew Salas. The family can trace their lineage through the decades of colonization, through the Spanish, Mexican, and American periods, tying back to the San Gabriel Mission and workers of the ranchero families that occupied Long Beach and Seal Beach. Mr. Teutimez also sits on California’s Environmental Protection Agency’s Tribal Advisory Council.

Attempts to interview Juaneño (Acjachemen) Tribal members have been unsuccessful.

Overview of the responses to the interview questions are incorporated in the Tribal Feedback as well as summarized in the Cultural Landscape sections below.

Figure 6. Mercedes Dorame and Cindi Alvitre, Gum Grove Park, Seal Beach, CA August 14, 2021. 58 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 39
Figure 7. Craig Torres and Nicholas Rocha, Los Cerritos Wetlands, Seal Beach, CA August 28, 202 SURVEY

METHODS
The survey stage is important in a Project’s environmental assessment phase to verify the exact location of each identified cultural resource, the condition or integrity of the resource, and the proximity of the resource to areas of cultural resources sensitivity. All undeveloped ground surface areas within the Project area were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, toolmaking debris, stone milling tools or fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations), or historic-era debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Existing ground disturbances (e.g., cutbanks, ditches, animal burrows, etc.) were visually inspected. Photographs of the Project area, including ground surface visibility and items of interest, were taken with a digital camera. Cogstone archaeologist Desiree Martinez conducted an intensive cultural resources pedestrian survey of selected areas of the Project area (northern edge of the Hellman Channel) on July 21 and August 28, 2021. Cogstone archaeologist Sandy Duarte completed an intensive-level pedestrian survey on August 5 and 6, 2021, of those areas not covered by dense vegetation.
59 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 40
Built environment survey methods include thoroughly photographing all elevations/facades of a structure including close-up photographs of important character defining features such as overall shape of the structure, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, etc. Cogstone Architectural Historian Shannon Lopez documented the Hellman Channel on July 21, 2021.

RESULTS
Ground visibility within the Project area was very poor (less than 3 percent) due to dense vegetation. As a result, Ms. Duarte surveyed approximately 20 acres of the 105 acres within the Project area which consisted of bare and semi-bare surrounding areas, having 95 percent visibility (Appendix L, Figure L - 1). The intensive pedestrian survey consisted of one- to threemeter wide transects in accessible areas. The wetlands and surrounding areas are covered with glasswort, prickly lettuce, sage brush, mule fat, wild tobacco, bladderpod, and an abundance of other native and non-native flora (
Figure 8). Most of the Project area surveyed has been highly disturbed from anthropogenic activities. Most of the Project area’s surface was covered with dredge sediments and various sized shell fragments including clam, oysters, scallops, barnacles, California Horn Snail, etc. ( Figure 9).

Figure 8. Overview of the Southern LCW Project area showing dense vegetation, facing northeast 60 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 41
Figure 9. Overview dredge sediments and shell within the Project area

NEWLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES
Six new cultural resources were recorded: one historic earthen irrigation channel, two prehistoric isolates (2021_08_05_SD.1-I and 2021_08_28_DRM.1-I), two historic sites (2021_08_06_SD.1 and 2021_08_06_SD.2) and one prehistoric site (2021_08_06_SD_3).

Hellman Channel
This segment of the historic Hellman Channel within the Southern LCW Project area is 4,161 feet long (Figure 10). This channel was likely constructed ca. 1928 and originally used for irrigation purposes on the Hellman Ranch. The channel is not lined and is gravity fed. The depth of the channel is between 1-2 feet and varies in width, approximately 4 feet at its narrowest point and around 15 feet at its widest. The bank of the channel is covered with dense vegetation.

Several concrete conduits located in various points along the channel allow water to flow under an asphalted road crossing.
61 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 42
Figure 10. Segment of Hellman Channel near 1st Street; facing east 2021_08_05_SD.1-I
2021_08_05_SD.1-I is an isolated prehistoric artifact consisting of 1 piece of obsidian debitage, located north of 1st Street (
Figure 11; Appendix L, Figure L - 1). The isolate measures 2.7 centimeters (cm) x 2.5 cm x 2 cm.
62 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 43
Figure 11. 2021_08_05_SD.1-I, isolated obsidian debitage 2021_08_28_DRM_1-I
2021_08_28_DRM_1-I is a prehistoric isolate consisting of 1 prehistoric exfoliated granitic unifacial mano and an exfoliated chalcedony scraper found in three pieces ( Figure 12; Appendix L, Figure L - 1). The mano measures 12.7 cm in diameter and 3.81 cm in thickness. When whole the scraper measured 2.54 cm x 2 cm and 0.5 cm in thickness. No other cultural resources or features were present.

Figure 12. 2021_08_28_DRM_1-I, granitic mano and chalcedony scraper 2021_08_06_SD.1
2021_08_06_SD.1 is a historic-age refuse site consisting of two piles of wood planks and boards, a pile of broken concrete, and some metal scraps
Figure 13,
Figure 14,
Figure 15,
Figure 16 and Appendix L, Figure L - 1). The wood and concrete had no diagnostic features. 63 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 44
Figure 13. Overview of first wood pile within 2021_08_06_SD.1, facing south Figure 14. Overview of second wood pile within 2021_08_06_SD.1, facing north 64 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 45
Figure 15. Overview of concrete pile within 2021_08_06_SD.1, facing south Figure 16. Metal scrap within 2021_08_06_SD.1.
65 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 46
2021_08_06_SD.2
2021_08_06_SD.2 is a historic-age refuse site consisting of deteriorated red bricks (Figure 17), a pile of tile fragments (
Figure 18) and a historic soda fired ceramic pipe sherd ( Figure 19). The site measures approximately 72 feet by 43 feet and is adjacent to the northern edge of the Hellman Channel (Appendix L, Figure L - 1).

Figure 17. Overview of deteriorating red brick within 2021_08_06_SD.2 66 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 47
Figure 18. Overview of ceramic tile in 2021_08_06_SD.2
Figure 19. Historic soda fired ceramic pipe sherd
2021_08_06_SD.3
2021_08_06_SD.3 is a prehistoric site consisting of a lithic scatter of a quartz flake ( Figure 20), a modified tool of pink quartzite (
Figure 21), and a grey quartzite scraper (
Figure 22). This site is approximately 60 meters east of 2021_08_06_SD.2. The site measures 60 meters by 14 meters and is adjacent to the northern edge of the Hellman Channel (Appendix L, Figure L - 1).

Figure 20. Quartz Flake within 2021_08_06_SD.3
67 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 48
Figure 21. Pink Quartzite tool within
2021_08_06_SD.3
Figure 22. Grey Quartzite scraper within
2021_08_06_SD.3

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES
Portions of three previously recorded cultural resources are located within the Southern LCW Project area. P-30-000256 was revisited. This northwest portion of the site sits atop a bluff and spills down slope into the wetlands. Approximately 15 percent of the site was visible. No cultural resources were observed.

The portions of P-30-000258 and P-30-000260 that lie within the Southern LCW Project area were not accessible due to dense vegetation and were not revisited.

EXTENDED PHASE I TESTING
Cogstone returned in September/October for Extended Phase I presence-absence testing of three resources recorded during the August 2021 survey and site visits. These resources (temporary names) are 2021_08_05_SD.1/I and 2021_08_28-DRM_1-I cultural isolates, and site 2021_08_06_SD.3. Planned excavation is summarized in Table 6 below (and investigation methods are summarized in the next section and detailed in Gust and Martinez 2022). Eric Zahn of Tidal Influence met with the archaeological crew on the first day of excavation to provide optimal access routes to the resources and to point out sensitive vegetation. Native American monitors representing Tribal Advisory Group participants accompanied the archaeological crew on a rotating basis (Table 7).

Table 6. Planned excavation
Site Name Site Type and
Description
Type of Excavation Depth of fill Planned
Disturbance
(Grading)
2021_08_05_SD.1/I Isolate-obsidian
debitage
Shovel Test Pit (STP) 50
cm diameter x 1.2 m (1.3
x 4 feet) deep
3 feet 3 feet
2021_08_06_SD.3 Site-lithic scatter Test Excavation Unit (TEU) 1m x1m x 1.6m (3
x 3 x 5 feet)
4 feet of fill 2-3 feet of cut
2021_08_28-DR_1-I Isolate-granitic mano
and chalcedony scraper
STP 40 cm diameter x 30
cm (1.3 x 1 foot) deep
0 feet No planned ground
disturbance
68 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 49
Table 7. Native American monitoring schedule
Date Monitor Representing
9/28/2022 none Planned representative was ill and unavailable 9/29/2022 Robert
Dorame
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
9/30/2022 Dominic
Robles
Ti’at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu
10/3/2022 John Blunt Gabrielino Tongva Nation
10/4/2022 Sam Dunlap Gabrielino Tongva Tribe

METHODS
The testing crew included a single supervisor-level archaeologist and a qualified field technician.

The principal archaeologist was on-site a on spot-check basis.

Cogstone contacted Dig-Alert (digalert.org) prior to the start of excavation, to obtain the locations of underground utilities.

Extended Phase I testing within the Southern LCW consisted of excavation with three prehistoric resources (2021_08_05_SD.1/I, 2021_08_06_SD.3, and 2021_08_28-DRM_1-I) identified during fields visits/pedestrian survey in 2021 (Appendix L, Figure L - 1; see Table 6).

Excavations were accomplished using a a round-tipped shovel, pick, and dig bar in 10-centimeter (4-inch) levels. Sediments at each excavation location were screened through 1/8-inch hardware mesh. Sediment color was identified using a Munsell® Soil Color Chart, and any natural stratigraphy or effects of bioturbation were described using standard methods and terminology.

All surface artifacts that could be reidentified were collected and the crew was prepared to collect all prehistoric artifacts and all temporally diagnostic historic-aged artifacts. A Handheld Trimble GeoXH 6000 high resolution GPS unit was used to record each excavation location.

Color digital photographs were taken before, during, and after fieldwork. Other documentation included field notes on the condition of the deposit and excavation records. After excavation was complete, each excavation location was backfilled using sediments from the excavation. 2021_08_05_SD.1/I
Work at 2021_08_21.SD/I was originally planned to consist of one 50 cm diameter x 1.2 m (1.3 feet x 4 feet) deep STP (STP 1). Sediment color varied from white (2.5Y8/1) at the surface to dusky red (2.5Y3/2) to 30 centimeters to dark brown (7.5Y3/3) from 30 centimeters to the bottom of the pit. Sediments in STP 1 were silty sand that become progressively less silty and more compact with depth. Clay content varied from minimal within first 20 centimeters to increasingly large dense nodules from 20 centimeters (8 inches) to 50 centimeters (20 inches) (Figure 23). At approximately 50 centimeters further excavation was stopped by a large piece of reddish in color dimensional lumber. Due to this obstruction, a second STP (designated STP 1B) 69 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 50
was excavated 5.2 meters (17 feet) due south of STP 1. Sediments within STP 1B were similar to those in STP 1 except it had greater clay content within the first 20 centimeters. A similar piece of reddish dimensional lumber was encountered at 58 centimeters (23 inches) (Figure 24).

No other subsurface cultural material was found in STP 1 or STP 1B.

Figure 23. STP 1 at 2021_08_05_SD.1/I post-excavation, view to the north. Note dimensional lumber at bottom of STP.

Figure 24. STP 1B at 2021_08_05_SD.1/I post-excavation. Note dimensional lumber at bottom of STP.
70 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 51
2021_08_28_DRM_1.I
Work at 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I consisted of a single STP (STP 2) excavated to the planned depth of 30 centimeters (1 foot) (Figure 25). Sediment color varied from white (2.5Y8/1) at the surface to very dark grayish brown (2.5 Y3/2) in the first 10 centimeters (4 inches) to grayish brown inches (2.5Y5/2) from 10 centimeters (4 inches) to 30 centimeters (12 inches). A thin layer of salt covered STP 2 at the surface. Sediments consisted of wet silty sand with minimal clay and a small amount of shell that diminishes with increasing depth. No cultural material was found subsurface within STP 2.

Figure 25. STP 2 at 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I post-excavation. 2021_08_06.SD.3
Planned work at 2021_08_06.SD.3 consisted of a single 1 meter (3 feet) by 1 meter (3 feet) TEU excavated to 1.6 meters (5.2 feet) deep. A possible hand stone (mano) was found 3.1 (10 feet) meters northwest of TEU on the surface but the not all of the cultural material identified during survey was reidentified during testing. Starting at a few centimeters below the surface the content of the TEU became approximately 20 percent very dark gray (5YR3/1) silty sand and 80 percent rocky material predominated by fragments of broken concrete. One lithic flake and two possible lithic flakes were found in the first ten centimeters (4 inches) (Level 1) and some chert and quartzite were also present. Contents of Levels 2 and 3 were a similar 80 percent rocky material/20 percent very dark gray (5YR3/1) silty sand, with a small number of shell fragments mixed within fragments of modern plastic bags. One potential lithic flake was recovered from 16 to 26 centimeters (6 to 10 inches) below surface, and another was found at 20 to 30 (8 to 12 inches) centimeters below surface. Starting at approximately three centimeters (1 inch) deep within Level 4 the rocky material content began to decrease. No artifacts were recovered from 71 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 52
the very dark gray (5YR3/1) silty sand within Level 4 other than a possible piece of wood. A brick fragment was found within the now nearly 100 percent very dark gray (5YR3/1) silty sand within Level 5. Small bits of asphaltum was also present from near the top of Level 1 to the bottom of Level 5. The first 5 centimeters of Level 6 consisted of the same very dark gray (5YR3/1) silty sand (Figure 26).

When the excavation reached 55 centimeters (22 inches) below surface, a shift in excavation methods was necessary due to time constraints. Instead of continuing the unit an STP (STP 3) was placed in the center of TEU 1. At approximately 85 centimeters (33 inches) below surface the dark reddish brown (2.5Y3/1) silty sand became wet and compacted and no longer contained shell or asphaltum. These sediments continued to 152 centimeters (5 feet) below surface where the STP was stopped due to time constraints and difficulty removing sediments from the STP for screening (Figure 27). Natural sediments were reached in this testing operation as fill depth was estimated to be approximately 4 feet (120 centimeters). No potentially prehistoric cultural material was found below 30 centimeters (1 foot) and any potentially historic-age material found was mixed with modern trash. Lithic artifacts from TEU 1 are shown in Figures 28 to 31. 72 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 53
Figure 26. TEU 1 at 2021_08_06.SD.3 post excavation at 55 centimeters deep, view to the north.

Figure 27. STP 3 in TEU 1 at 2021_08_06.SD.3 post excavation at 152 centimeters deep, view to the north.

Figure 28. Lithic flake (4) 1.4from TEU 1, 0 to
10 centimeters below surface.

Figure 29. Possible lithic flakes from
TEU 1, 0 to 10 centimeters below
TP3
5'.'.:'- 1'°'L""''o5 6.¼,~,
ol tote'- ~' l02L
uTM:, S398052,3,.35 n L_____ - -
73 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 54
surface.

Figure 30. Possible lithic flake from TEU 1,
16 to 26 centimeters below surface.

Figure 31. Possible lithic flake from
TEU 1, 20 to 30 centimeters below
surface.

RESULTS
None of the three resources that underwent tended phase I presence/absence testing in September/October 2022 were found to have associated intact buried cultural deposits. Specific information for each tested resource follows.
2021_08_05_SD.1/I
According to Eric Zahn of Tidal Influence (personal communication to John Gust on October 3, 2022) this resource was in an area that previously contained sump pits used in fossil fuel extraction. The reddish dimensional lumber found in the bottom of STPs 1 and 1B is consistent with this as cedar and redwood, both reddish in color, are commonly used in wet situations due to their natural resistance to rotting. Excavation for a sump pit would have disrupted any cultural deposits once present.
2021_08_28_DRM_1.I
The planned STP in this resource was excavated according to plan and revealed no cultural material subsurface.
2021_08_06.SD.3
Testing excavation in this resource was deeper than within the two isolates. The only potentially prehistoric material was found no deeper than 30 centimeters (1 foot) below surface and then 74 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 55
mixed with modern trash and concrete debris. Natural sediments were reached in the last approximately 30 centimeters (1 foot) without encountering cultural deposits.

GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

METHODS
For this assessment, University of California Davis National Resources Conservation Service California Soils Resource Lab (UCD SoilWeb, accessed September 2021) soils maps were consulted along with the United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS, accessed September 2021) soils descriptions, and geologic maps. Soils of the Project area were determined using the UCD maps.

Subsurface site preservation depends on many factors. Soils and locations were analyzed for grain sizes, slope, and environmental indicators that contribute to the preservation of sites.

Primarily, sites accumulate where people have the highest probability of living; on lower slope gradients near water sources but in areas that are unlikely to experience regular flooding.

Additionally, lower slope gradients decrease erosion and increase deposition assisting in site burial. Both pebbly and coarser grain sizes as well as clay rich soils preserve artifacts poorly.

The age of a soil also determines the likelihood of buried archaeological sites and must be assessed as the older soils are less likely to contain sites unless items were intentionally buried in them. Soils likely too old for site preservation have duripans (hardpans), and argillic (clay rich) horizons, while younger soils with a higher potential for preservation are indicated by the lack of a B horizon or the presence of a cambic horizon. Both Holocene alluvial and aeolian units have a higher potential for artifacts as the soils were co-deposited with the local cultural groups.

CLASSIFICATIONS FOR BURIED SITE POTENTIAL ARE AS FOLLOW Very low: Soils are underlain by deposits that predate human occupation of the region. Soils that include B horizons, especially if they are argillic or silicic (duripan) horizons are also classified as very low. Additionally, exposed bedrock, borrow pits, heavily eroded or gullied land, or water bodies have a very low potential. Areas of high erosion, water, borrow pits, rock outcrops, or sediments mapped as Pleistocene or older are classified as having a very low potential.

Low: Soils are underlain by deposits that predate human occupation of the region, high-energy deposits unlikely to contain cultural materials in a primary context, are residual soils (soils weathered in place above bedrock), or include B horizons. Low-potential areas include Inceptisols. These are formed in residual soils weathered directly from bedrock and, thus, have a 75 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 56
low potential for buried sites. Areas where soils are weathered from bedrock, dissected alluvial fans, and locations where soils are forming on mountains are classified as having a low potential.

Medium: Soils are underlain by deposits that are most likely terminal Pleistocene or Holocene in age, possibly have intact buried surfaces, or have sediments that are likely to have been deposited in a low-energy environment. Alluvial fans, fan aprons, valley fills, dissected remnants of alluvial fans, floodplains, and drainages are classified as having a medium potential.

High: Soils are underlain by deposits that are most likely terminal Pleistocene or Holocene in age, or sediments represent low-energy deposits, or have a high potential to contain buried intact geomorphic surfaces that could have been used by humans in the past. Alluvial stream terraces and floodplains, terrace escarpments, alluvial fans (fan skirts, fan aprons, and inset fans), and areas with aeolian deposits are classified as having a high potential.

RESULTS
The Project area is mapped as middle to late Pleistocene old marine to nonmarine deposits and modern artificial fill. The location of the Southern LCW Project area adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and San Gabriel River would have made the area highly appealing for settlement.

However, the minimal topography indicates that the area would have likely been marshy and subject to flooding. The slightly raised Landing Hill located to the south and east of the Project area would have been a more likely area to find settlements, as is evident by the many archaeological sites documented. Several soils are present within the Project area, some of which formed in the marsh habitat and others that are introduced to the Project area as fill and denote disturbance (Appendix M, Figure M - 1; USDA-NRCS 2021).

SOILS MAPPED OVER ARTIFICIAL FILL
At the surface, all areas mapped as artificial fill will have a very low potential as any artifacts present would be not in situ. Soils impacted include Balcom clay loam (112), Bolsa silty clay loam, drained (125), Bolsa, drained (1230LA), and Myford sandy loam (173, 175; Appendix M, Figure M - 1).

Based on the geology map, a good portion of the sediments below the artificial fill are probably middle to late Pleistocene old marine to nonmarine deposits (Qom), late Pleistocene to Holocene young alluvial fan deposits (Qya2) associated with the San Gabriel River, late Pleistocene to Holocene young paralic estuarine deposits (Qype), and late Holocene paralic estuarine deposits (Qpe; Appendix C,
Figure C - 3). Pleistocene deposits mostly predate human settlement, and both estuary and marine environments are unfavorable to settlement. As such, all of these sediments are assigned a low to very low potential for buried sites.
76 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 57

SOILS MAPPED OVER MIDDLE TO LATE PLEISTOCENE OLD MARINE TO NONMARINE DEPOSITS Unit 112, the Balcom clay loam, is assigned a very low potential for buried sites due to the topography of the adjacent steep slope, the potentially marshy flats, as well as the age of the underlying sediments. Additionally, the presence of B horizons decrease the potential for buried sites.

Unit 125, the Bolsa silty clay loam, drained is assigned a low potential for buried sites due to the potentially marshy flats and the age of the underlying sediments.

Units 173 and 175, Myford sandy loam, are assigned a very low potential for buried sites due to the topography of the adjacent steep slope, the potentially marshy flats, as well as the age of the underlying sediments. Additionally, the presence of B horizons decrease the potential for buried sites.

TRIBAL FEEDBACK
As previously stated, in compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL16: Future Native American Input for the PEIR, the LCWA created a Tribal Advisory Group (TAG) to solicit recommendations regarding the Southern LCW Restoration Project. Members of the TAG recommended Tribal members to be interviewed for their cultural knowledge of the area.

Mitigation Measure CUL17 of the PEIR states that a Tribal Access Plan will be created “to preserve and enhance tribal members’ access to, and use of, the restoration Project area for religious, spiritual, or other cultural purposes.” The following is a summary of comments, concerns, and information gathered through TAG meetings, site visits and interviews. Further, comments provided in Section 3.15: Tribal Cultural Resources of the PEIR are also included here, as one of the Tongva elders who provided comments passed away in early 2021 and would have been interviewed for her extensive knowledge of salt marshes.

PAST USE OF SALT MARSHES
A search of the ethnographic record, including the J.P. Harrington and C. Hart Merriam notes, did not turn up any significant description of the use of salt marshes or the Los Cerritos Wetlands by the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) or the Acjachemen. Merriam (n.d.: Roll 8) did record the Luiseno name of the “Salinas” at today’s Redondo Beach as Engva. Historically, Redondo Beach, located 18 miles northwest of the Project area, was well known for the Pacific Salt Works that was established there in 1854 (Gnerre 2010). It was also used by the local Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh). Alfred Kroeber recorded from Jose Zalvidea that the 77 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 58
Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) name of the village was Ongoving (Kroeber 1907: 143).

McCawley spells it ‘Ongoovanga (McCawley 1996: 63).

Merriam records the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) words for salt as “Ung-er” from Mrs. J.V. Rosemyre, a Tongva woman who lived in Bakersfield, California in 1903. She further stated that the salt made from salt grass was “se’-e-mōt” and that the salt was used for fever (Merriam n.d. 1556: Roll 49).

The LCWA met with Julia Bogany of the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, who stated that the Los Cerritos Wetlands was probably used as a “salt works” much like the Redondo area (Coastal Restoration Consultants 2021:61-62). She provided further information as summarized in the PEIR:

In the Tongva history, it is known that salt marsh used to exist in this area because their tribe would travel from the ocean to the salt marsh on canoes. The salt marshes were important to the Tongva because throughout prehistoric times, the Tongva traded salt gathered from salt flats in the salt marsh. Multiple stories exist that document the salt trade, for example, the tribe used to trade salt to a hospital in San Bernardino to treat patients. The Los Cerritos Wetlands is the only prehistoric salt marsh left in the area from Pacific Palisades, and the Los Cerritos Wetlands was and continues to be an important cultural resource to the Tongva and Acjachemen tribes (Section 3.15.2.3 of the PEIR).

Lowell Bean also documented salt being traded from the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) to the Cahuilla and vice versa (
Figure 3).

SALT AS MEDICINE
Cindi Alvitre stated that salt was and continues to be an important medicine.

I’ll give you an example of that, is I grew up with a father who when we got sick we would go to the ocean, he would gather the salt water, the ocean water––we could do that back in the fifties––and we would, like, use a neti pot and we would breathe it in through our nose…And then at some point we stopped doing it because the water was polluted. And that’s when we started accessing Hawaiian salt. You know the Hawaiian salt is very holy, just like to the Pueblo people it’s (salt) very holy. It’s holy to all people… also we would use it where you take like a tablespoon of salt, good salt, and as hot as you can take the water, if you’re getting the flu or something, and you drink it. And it’ll just––it literally flushes everything out of your system.
78 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 59
Torres also recalls using salt water as medicine.

The one thing that sticks out in my mind is, especially with my mom, is using salt water, not necessarily from the ocean, because we couldn’t go down and use the salt water for health, but gargling with salt water all the time when we got sick, you know? And I think it really stems from us traditionally using that salt water for healing in the past, because she would always talk about that, gargle with salt water, gargle with salt water. And so that’s what sticks out in my mind as a child, always having her talking about that whenever we got sick.

Alvitre further stated that:
…every time there’s a bad kid you just want to bathe him in that water…Bathing in the water was like, not a Christian baptism, but it was a way of rebalancing yourself. So that motivation is always connecting to the water, to that sacredness, that holiness, that place that has so much energy and life.

Rocha explains that it is also not just about salt water, but the salt air as well that can be healing.

He recalls is mother would say:
… it’s not so much salt water, because everything lives in a relationship in the community, you know, air is an organism and salt water with the air. My mom used to call it salt air therapy. Not only does it have the spirit, it kind of makes you mentally stable. You know, you come out here, you breath the air, and that stimulates the body and it gets you focused…You know, it’s––something generates that from inside them and my mom always had the theory of salt air as therapy. If someone was mad, someone was angry, somebody was sad, this was a place we came. And you were good. I mean, it works; it works beautifully. I recommend it.

Torres commented that he felt healed being out in the Los Cerritos Wetlands on the day of the interview:
… I just came from the desert right now, where it was like 114 degrees. And being back here on the coast with the fog there is something––I mean, I feel healed just being here right now, you know, compared to being out in the desert yesterday. And so, there’s something––I don’t know if it’s just the ions, the ancestors, or just the…––because this is the place where they lived for thousands of generations––and being back home, as opposed to the desert. But there’s 79 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 60
something to be said about––you know, we were talking about this too on the ride, just a while ago. It’s like this fog and this salt in the air, for me it’s healing.

FISHING
Mr. Rocha recalls the stories that his mother would tell him about the Los Cerritos Wetlands, “So, my mom would talk about the days her uncles used to come out here in a four-man skiff and fish for crab, shrimp, mussels, whatever.”
Mr. Teutimez stressed the value of shellfish both as a food source and the value of the shells cultural uses, and would like to get them back into our estuaries.

COLLECTING PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Dorame stated that her dad Robert told her that he used to eat watercress from the wetlands located on the west side of Los Angeles.
…he said his mother would take him to the shore but only let him––put his hands behind his back so he wouldn’t take too much. So he actually had to eat it out of the water with his mouth because it was a means of respecting that you weren’t taking too much of what you could consume in that moment.

Alvitre recounted:

Like, my father would go into the wetlands. I mean, we were more Newport Back Bay, [those] wetlands. Of course it’s the same wetlands system, but what we’re lacking now is, again, that access and even the use of a lot of those foods because of the denial of access. The birds, the water fowl––that’s a food source. The eggs are a food source. The fish, different kinds of fish that come into the wetlands at high tide and low tide, being able to recognize that and know which one of those are good.

Rocha stated that when his family would travel through the area, his mother, Vera, would tell stories of the gifts that could be found within the wetlands.

As soon as my mom always asked this question, we knew what was going to become of this conversation. She would say, “Not much pickleweed anymore.

We’ve got to get the pickleweed.” My dad would always answer with the same response, “What the heck do we want with that for? It’s poisoned. It’s no good no more.” And my mom would say, “Well, I remember the pickleweed.” I remember her mom telling her stories about how uncles and relatives, ancestors, used to 80 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 61
come out here when the tide rolled out, to see what the tide left them, what presents the tide left them. There were things in abundance back then…But she would tell stories about the baby green sea turtles out here, that you’ll find that they’ll be dropping from the sky because the terns would pick them up. And then the terns would be fighting for them and they’ll be dropping from the sky and you’d have to put them back in the water. There were stories of even fishing for halibut out here and other things: soft shell crab, oysters, mussels. Things were in abundance. When the tide rolled out it left a lot of gifts. And when the eel grass was visible, you know, that was one of the best times to go on an adventure… Additionally, while on the tour of the Project area, Rocha stated that pickleweed was used in the abalone stew his family would make. Rocha mentioned that although his mother would talk about the gifts of the wetlands, they never went in because of the oil drilling and contamination.

Table 8 lists a few salt marsh plants that have been identified as used by the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and their uses. The interviewees would like to be able to incorporate these plants into their community once again.

Table 8. Selected salt marsh plants
Common name Scientific name Tribal Uses
Pickleweed Salicornia pacifica Food
California sea
lavender/ western
marsh rosemary
Limonium
californicum
Food; medicine
Southern tar plant Centromadia
parryi ssp.
australis
Salt grass Distichlis spicata Used to season food
California boxthorn Lycium
californicum
Edible berries
Watercress Nasturtium
officinale
Food, leaves eaten (personal communication;
Dorame 2021)
Bladderpod Peritoma arborea Food; flowers boiled (Ramirez and Small 2015: 12-17)
Evening primrose Oenothera elata Food; medicine
Yebra Mansa Anemopsis
californica
Medicine; tea used for colds and sore throat
(Drake in Ramirez and Small 2015); poultice
doe cuts and wounds (Mojado in Ramirez and
Small 2015)
81 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 62
Common name Scientific name Tribal Uses
Shore grass Distichlis littoralis
Eelgrass Zostera marina Food; use of rhizomes, seeds and leaves

CURRENT USE OF THE LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS AND SALT MARSHES None of the interviewees or Tribal representatives at the site visit stated that they currently use the Los Cerritos Wetlands or other salt marshes for the collection of plants or animals or other cultural activities. Although Ms. Dorame and her father have close connections to the Ballona Wetlands and have participated in the creation of educational programming and more recently the installation of a monument created to honor the Gabrielino/Tongva ancestors at the Ballona Wetlands Discovery Center (
Figure 32), neither are using the salt marsh to gather plants or for other cultural activities.

Figure 32. Monument at the Ballona Discovery Center created by Robert Dorame 82 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 63

FUTURE USE OF SALT MARSHES

COLLECTION OF PLANTS AND AANIMALS
As previously stated, although the use and connection of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen communities to salt marshes have been cut because of urbanization and colonization, all of the interviewees stated they would like reconnect the community with the salt marsh through the harvesting of plants and animals.

Alvitre stated:

You know, as Craig [Torres] would say, it’s all about that relational reciprocity.

You know, that’s something that is …important––it’s one of our core values as Tongva people is to have that relationship because it’s not a matter of today the practice is very common amongst indigenous people, Native American people, is they just go buy the feathers. They go buy the abalone, or buy this or buy that. I practice it, too; I’m no different than anybody else. And we don’t have a relationship with that which we use. Two or three hundred years ago it was different because you did have a relationship. You had to have a relationship with it, and to disrespect it or to abuse it would have the consequences, would not be very good. So that’s––how do we teach that core value to our young people and to our old people and to all of us, you know, to have those spaces so we can have that relationship with the cormorants and learn about them; so we can learn about those ancient pelicans, you know, the herons, the egrets, the hawks that are here.

And oh my gosh there’s so many, many––the black-crowned night heron. What are their stories? You know, the different fish! Nobody––I never hear much people talking about the fish, you know? Sea bass and bonito and clams and mussels and abalone––well, that’s a whole other thing.

Mr. Rocha stated that he would like to come out to the wetlands to fish for crab, shrimp, mussels like his mother and her uncles used to.

Mr. Teutimez discussed the connection of Puvunga to cottonwoods and the importance of cottonwoods as medicinal plants.
…we can talk about Puvungna. What does it mean? Because our names were very indicative of that location. The name explained the whole location, and the name there actually is very specific to me because of where my family grew up, Los Alamitos. Los Alamitos means the little cottonwood.
83 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 64
That’s actually one of the main trees [cottonwood] that I look for, for the medicines that I make for our Tribe….[their] bark has these oily components in it, and that oil was heavily used for healing of cuts, just like Neosporin.

HARVESTING SALT
Although harvesting salt from a salt marsh or from the salt grass is currently not practiced, all interviewees would like to re-establish those connections and use the salt for medicinal purposes.

COLLECTION OF DREDGED SHELL
During both the TAG visit and the tour provided to interviewees, Tribal representatives saw piles of large clam and other shell within the Southern LCW Project area. They requested prior to construction that they be allowed to collect the shell for educational and cultural activities.

RECONNECTING WITH THE LAND
Torres stated that being able to come out to the wetlands to teach the Tongva community how to be human is important.
… I always tell people that the animals and the plants are going to teach us how to be human again because we’ve lost that. So that’s the significance to me of this place is being out here physically on the landscape and just sitting here watching, and they will teach you how to behave as human. You know, because we’ve lost so much of what that is and that connection to what has sustained our ancestors for thousands of generations, and we need that. We need that for the healing of our human communities, but also the healing of our relatives, the plant communities, the animal communities, the air, the water––everything.

Alvitre agreed when she stated, “That’s kind of the whole point there, too, is for us to re-learn and to reconnect, to renew.”

PLACE TO LAUNCH TULE BOATS
As stated in the section Past Use of the Salt Marsh above, salt marshes connected the communities from the ocean to the interior using boats, both tule and ti’ats. Currently there is a resurgence in the creation and use of tule boats within the Gabrielino and Acjachemen communities, however due to urbanization, there are not a lot of safe places to practice paddling.

For example, members of the Gabrielino, Acjachemen, and greater southern California Native American community members demonstrated the building of a tule boat at the Moompetam American Indian Festival held at the Aquarium of the Pacific, September 24, 2018. After the festival was over, the community lowered the tule boat into the harbor ( Figure 33). While in the water, the paddlers had to contend with not only the private boats pulling and out of their slips but the larger touring Aquaboats that were docking. Since the tule 84 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 65
boat was so small, it was dangerous to paddle. A dozen community members tried paddling over the course of an hour until the boat became waterlogged. As a result, Tongva and Acjachemen community members stated that they would like to use the wetlands to teach the next generation how to paddle and use the boats to collect resources. Using the wetlands in this way would be creating a place where community members could gather, assemble, and build a tule boat and launch it safety into the water.

Figure 33. Heidi Lucero (Acjachemen) and Frank Magallanes (Ti’at Society) paddling a tule boat made during the Moompetam American Indian Festival at the Aquarium of the Pacific, September 24, 2018 in the City of Long Beach Rainbow Harbor surrounded by private boats.

CO-STEWARDSHIP
Having access to collect plant material, conduct ceremony and other cultural activities in the Los Cerritos Wetlands is important. However, the tribal interviewees discussed the idea of comanagement (co-steward) the wetlands. Co-stewardship means using methods that are grounded in the Gabrielino’s and Acjachemen’ s relationship to the land and relatives as instructed by their Creator. “These relationships include, but are not limited to, a combination of knowledge, experience, tradition, places, locality, all living and nonliving things, skills, practices, theories, social strategies, moments, spirituality, history, heritage, and more; and may not be fully embraced by people who fail to understand all those dimensions” (NCRS 2010). Co-stewardship also means having the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen community involved in all planning and decision making so that natural processes can be sustained and to ensure that the use by the community does not diminish the potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations.
85 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 66

EDUCATION
Ms. Bogany, during consultation for the PEIR, stated that she would like to see all members of the Gabrielino/Tongva community be invited to help with “the physical and interpretive design” of the Los Cerritos Wetlands. This would include signage as well as “including actual ‘harvest’ of the salt as a cultural and educational activity” (Moffat and Nichol 2015: 59) Although both Rocha and Torres agreed that the Los Cerritos Wetlands have a lot to teach the public, any educational programming created should first be focused on the Gabrielino/Tongva community. Torres states:

Educating our younger generations, specifically Tongva community, on this place and what comes from this place. Reconnecting them to this place, getting them to re-establish their relationship with this place and the nature that comes from this place, and then they become responsible for educating the public about that. Not a place that is filled with non-Native docents that are interpreting it, but our own people, our own communities. And giving them the responsibility and obligation to talk about, ‘this is where your identity comes from; it comes from the land.

Without it you’re nothing.’ And getting them to understand that so then they can go out and educate the larger public about this place.

Torres stated that he would like to see some type of outdoor classroom that does not affect the landscape or viewshed of the wetlands. “It becomes part of the landscape, you know, instead of being intrusive and being a huge building right there, it becomes so much part of the landscape that you don’t even see it as a building.” Rocha suggested a traditional building like a kiiy.

Alvitre stated that any public educational materials created for the wetlands should include discussion of a:
… whole history that’s been erased and that history needs to be corrected. And it’s as if we have a responsibility of identifying all these very specific areas and redefining and rearticulating what that use is to the public, because it’s important that our history is recorded…, it’s about the public realizing that the health of the wetlands is also reliant on their behavior and their own practices, right? We’re at that point on our planet right now that people need to change that around, you know? So, it’s almost as if we have a responsibility. Here we are trying to heal our communities and trying to bring back life to our communities, but at the same time we also have that responsibility to share a lot of the information that we can with the public so they renew their relationship with the natural world, that they 86 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 67
have to renew that. It’s everybody’s responsibility, but who has the language for that? Who has the experience and the history? It’s the Tongva.

GATHERING PLACE
All of the interviewees agreed that a place should be created for the Gabrielino/Tongva community to gather for ceremonies or practice cultural traditions within the wetlands in private.

Currently, the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) community must use public parks, campgrounds, beaches, university/college property, and personal backyards to conduct ceremonies. None of these locations are ideal as the possibility of interference, unwanted onlookers, and/or noise from traffic affects the atmosphere that is necessary to conduct the ceremony.

Dorame lamented that, “There’s no space where we can go and just have that sovereignty of existence and ceremony and medicine and teaching the next generation.” Rocha felt similarly when he stated:

I want to see something that involves family; that involves our drums; involves our rattles. So much not as a pow-wow grounds, but just like a community area where we come together for prayer, morning prayers, you know, tide prayers–– anything. We would like to see something like that, where the sound reverberates and where people won’t complain about a drum…How nice would it be to hear some drums, you know, at this point in time? A nice little primary where the sound can reverberate, where we can appease Mother Earth by song or by poems– –something.

Alvitre suggested that a community gathering space would need to accommodate a number of people, she did not give a number, with the possibility of staying overnight. Dorame also suggested that the community space could be used as a healing space. Alvitre further stated that this space should be closed to the public and only be available for Gabrielino community members as having a place open to the public has:
… been part of the problem. Like at Puvungna we have it there, but it’s public space and people just wander in and out, you’re doing ceremony. Wherever we’re at people just kind of wander in and out and it’s a distraction. You know, they start asking questions and yeah. And we deserve more than that.

Alvitre elaborated that having ceremonies being disrupted in public spaces by people who ask what she is doing, “… changes the energy; it changes even our feelings and our peace. It changes our own peace, that we can’t be comfortable, we can’t feel safe, we can’t feel interfered.” Thus it 87 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 68
becomes important to have that private space, away from the public, to have that peace.

LAND CAPABILITY
Mr. Teutimez noted how the current state of natural systems affects what can be done in restoring the land.

So, when we do coastal restoration, you pretty much have to say, okay, what era do we want to go back in, because in the 1600s this part was a whole different component, and in the 1800s, because the river changed and now it’s flowing this way, it’s a whole different component. So, it’s pretty much whatever the land provides for us is what we’re going to be allowed to revegetate and to help re-heal and put in there. So, we can try and do these other components, but it’s up to the land in terms of how it’s going to take, because that’s just the cycles. You know, we may get a huge flood event and, boom, now we’ve taken off all these layers of stuff and then other developing stuff grows. Or it becomes a ponding area or a ponded area, you know? It’s just, it’s so dynamic it’s hard for us as humans to put it into a box.

NURSERY
Rocha stated that he would like to see a nursery be created to grow the plants that would be used to restore the area.

So I would like to see a dedicated nursery area where we can generate the plants from here to be restored. You know, to the place where they came from, not relocated from somewhere else. Because the medicine stays strong; the spirit stays strong in them. …kids could come and learn how to regenerate plant life that is farmed in this area and contribute back to it instead of taking away. That would be great; I’d like to see that.

NAME OF THE PROJECT AREA
Both Rocha and Torres commented that it would be great to name the Project area with a Gabrielino/Tongva name.

CONCERNS

CONTAMINATION
Although those interviewed and during the site visit were excited about possibility of using the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands as described above, there were concerns about contamination as a result of the urban runoff and oil extraction. Further, since the area was part of the Hellman 88 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 69
Ranch which was used for agriculture, tribal representatives at the site visit asked if the area has been tested for pesticides and DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane).

ACCESS
One of the major barriers to using areas such as the Los Cerritos Wetlands for cultural practices is the lack of access or the difficulty of gaining access. Los Angeles County urban sprawl has destroyed or significantly impacted areas that were used by the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen community prehistorically and historically. If there are lands that have prime habitat, they are usually privately owned and marked with no trespassing signs. Some tribal community members have jumped over barbed wire fences, parked on the sides of narrow two-lane highways to climb on their truck roof, or hiked for miles to gather plants. These are dangerous actions which can only be done by the young and/or able bodied.

These access limitations also do not allow elders or community members with mobility issues to participate in gathering. As explained above, part of a Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh)’s responsibility to our plant, animal and rock relatives is to acknowledge our reciprocal responsibility to them. If elders cannot offer prayers during collection, weed, and trim the plants themselves, they are not fulfilling their relative’s expectations which may cause harm in the future. Thus, it becomes important to have easily accessible plant communities for elders to drive up to or only have a very short walk on a flat and un-rocky trail.

All of the interviewees commented that permit applications to use land are lengthy, costly and/or need a lot of lead time to obtain in time for the appropriate season to conduct community gatherings or harvest medicine. Thus, the LCWA should create a process, in collaboration with the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen Tribes, which will allow community members to collect or use the land as easily as possible. This means not requiring permits or providing long term permits (e.g., 5-year permits) at no cost.

THE PUVUNGNA TRADITIONAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE
As previously stated in the introduction, the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex is significant to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Juaneño (Acjachemen) tribes. Tribal representatives described the Los Cerritos Wetlands and its surroundings during Tribal consultation of the PEIR as sacred lands. Located in between the villages of Puvungna to the north and Motuucheyngna to the east, all three are considered by Tribes to be part of a larger cultural landscape (Appendix C, Figure C - 10. Location of villages within the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape).

Although the LCWA identified the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex as part of a larger cultural landscape as a tribal cultural resource under CEQA, no name was giving to the larger cultural 89 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 70
landscape. This study will use Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PTCL) to identify this larger landscape (Appendix C, Figure C - 11).

RESEARCH APPROACH
Cogstone adheres to using Indigenous Archaeology methods during all work. Indigenous Archaeology was first defined as conducting archaeological research “with, for, and by indigenous people” (Nicholas and Andrews 1997:3). Indigenous Archaeology practitioners have extended this definition to include all work that deals with the indigenous past, present, and future (Martinez 2010). When applied to cultural resources management assessments, this means ensuring the recordation of cultural sites is done in collaboration with indigenous communities so that it captures site use from an indigenous perspective. This includes identifying a site as significant even if it does not meet the significance criteria under the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and recording culturally significant spaces even if there are no physical remnants on the surface.

The CRHR does not provide guidance on identifying traditional cultural landscapes. Although this study will be using an Indigenous Archaeology method to identify resources, this study must also use federal and state regulations to identify, assess and evaluate cultural resources which are described below.

TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES
In addition to the NRHP criteria listed above, a property may be listed on the National Register based on its traditional cultural significance.

Traditional in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices.

Examples of properties possessing such significance include:
• a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world; • a rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long term residents;
• an urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices;
90 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 71
• a location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and • a location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity.

A traditional cultural property, then, can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker and King 1998:1).

The National Register Bulletin 38 (Parker and King 1998) discusses other characteristics to be used when considering a traditional cultural property for its eligibility to the National Register which will be used in this study.

IDENTIFYING LANDSCAPES
Although a landscape approach to archaeological sites can be traced to the 1920s (Stoddard and Zubrow 1999), its application began in the mid-1970s in Britain as a way to blend field archaeology with landscape history (Aston and Rowley 1974:11; Fleming 1997:267). Since that time, scholars have taken landscape archaeology in a variety of directions.

Early archaeological studies viewed the landscape solely as the backdrop onto which material culture was placed. It was seen as a factor that influenced how past peoples arranged themselves, whether by the landscape’s available resources and/or its physical characteristics (i.e., settlement patterns) (Ashmore and Knapp 1999:1; Wandsnider 1992). Recently, scholars have recognized that the landscape is more than just a synonym for the natural environment. Instead, landscapes represent “a way in which… people have signified themselves and their world through their…relationship with nature, and through which they have underlined and communicated their own social role and that of others with respect to external nature” (Cosgrove 1985:13).

Also important within a landscape approach is the recognition that the so-called “empty” spaces; areas lacking clusters of material remains or “sites,” are just as significant as those with tangible cultural phenomena (Anschuetz et al. 2001:161; Wobst 2005). Thus, consideration of the entire landscape surrounding an archaeological site, including its physical and metaphysical properties, must be included in order to gain more nuanced understandings of the past.

We will have to allow for the ‘natural’ (that is ‘non-artefactual’) and 91 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 72
‘cultural’ (that is, ‘artefactual’) variables to be enculturated, to be significant to human action, and to articulate, like artifacts, with social life (Wobst 2005:28).

The application of landscape theory has been utilized in several California regions and time periods (Allen 2011; Eerkens et al. 2007; Fleming 1997; Kryder-Reid 2007; Laylander and Schaefer 2010; Perry and Delaney-Rivera 2011; Robinson et al. 2011; Whatford 1994). A subsection of these studies includes understanding how people and places are connected via trails and pathways. For example, the Chuckwalla Valley Prehistoric Trails Network Cultural Landscape study, undertaken by the Bureau of Land Management and the California Energy Commission, was generated in response to the destruction of archaeological sites by recent massive renewable energy development in the California desert. The study aims to understand how “sites that may lack individual distinction” may have “greater significance and research value when contributing to a larger data base” (Laylander and Schaefer 2010).

Part of using Indigenous Archaeology methods is recognizing that how archaeologists identify and record areas used by Native Americans does not reflect how the Native American community sees those same spaces. Archaeologists work with the tangible, drawing circles around clusters of artifacts, putting dots on maps, and connecting the dots to understand prehistoric Native American lifeways. Further, archaeologists use various technologies to understand the patterning of the lines, dots, and polygons they created to signify tangible cultural phenomena. This arbitrary boxing of data leads to the misinterpretation of prehistoric settlement patterns, socio-economic connections, and the cosmological significance of an area. Native American communities did not live on dots, in lines or within bounded spaces. Instead, they lived among the hills and mountains, between meandering streams, and around watering holes, all the while surrounded by a landscape given to them by the first beings. The areas used by Native peoples may have had visible and invisible boundaries with tangible and intangible cultural remains. Thus, what is most important for this study is to transcend traditional interpretations of site type, placement and significance, in order to align more squarely with the Native American understandings of how “everything is connected” (Martinez et al. 2012).

California state regulations do not provide guidance on identifying cultural landscapes; however, the National Park Service has several bulletins that define different types of landscapes. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has also issued some guidance. Both are briefly described below.

LANDSCAPE DEFINITIONS
The five types of historic properties identified in the NHPA were further categorized by NPS - 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline (National Park Service 1998) based on common 92 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 73
attributes for the ease of management: archeological resources, cultural landscapes, structures, museum objects, and ethnographic resources (NPS 1998). Of importance to this study are the categories of cultural landscapes and ethnographic resources. According to the Management Guideline:

Cultural landscapes are settings we have created in the natural world. They reveal fundamental ties between people and the land–ties based on our need to grow food, give form to our settlements, meet requirements for recreation, and find suitable places to bury our dead. Landscapes are intertwined patterns of things both natural and constructed: plants and fences, watercourses and buildings…They are special places: expressions of human manipulation and adaptation of the land.

Ethnographic resources are basic expressions of human culture and the basis for continuity of cultural systems. A cultural system encompasses both the tangible and the intangible. It includes traditional arts and native languages, religious beliefs and subsistence activities. Some of these traditions are supported by ethnographic resources: special places in the natural world, structures with historic associations, and natural materials.

Preservation Brief 36 “Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes” (Birnbaum 1994) defines four general types of cultural landscapes: historic sites, historic designated landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. Ethnographic landscapes are those that contain “a variety of natural and cultural resources that associated people define as heritage resources” (Birnbaum 1994:2). The Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape and its use by the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) would be considered an ethnographic landscape.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDANCE
Although Bulletin 38 supports the nomination of and the National Register includes traditional cultural landscapes, the guidelines are vague with many cultural resources practitioners not knowing how to identify and nominate cultural landscapes to the NRHP. As a result, the Preserve America Summit Panel (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2007:19) recommended in its report that Bulletin 38 should be reviewed and/or revised in order to address these concerns. Additionally, with the increase of the renewable energy projects and their possible effects on Native American sacred landscapes as identified through the Section 106 consultation process, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) created a traditional cultural landscapes initiative and adopted an action plan in November 2011. The action plan also suggested that Bulletin 38 be revised and recommended raising awareness within the 93 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 74
preservation community about the existence and importance of Native American traditional cultural landscapes by developing tools to assist all participants in their recognition (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2011, 2012a, 2012b). Although official guidance for the identification of landscapes is currently still under development, this report will use current scholarship in landscape studies to identify and understand the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex and surrounding areas as a cultural landscape.

BACKGROUND
GABRIELINO (GABRIELEÑO, TONGVA) RELATIONSHIP TO THE LAND:

MAXAAX3
To better understand how the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) have used, are using, or may use the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex, one must understand the Gabrielino’s (Gabrieleño, Tongva) relationship to the land. This relationship started with the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) creation as Craig Torres, a Tongva cultural educator, recounts:

Tongva Creation narratives convey that a pre-human ‘Amuupavetam (First People) during a time of great earth changes, transformed themselves and became the landscape of the Middle World, Upper World and Lower Worlds…we are all connected.

Human Beings were the last to emerge and appear on the landscape and were the most vulnerable of all creation. Because of the “gifts” and sacrifices made by the ‘Amuupavetam, humans reciprocated a responsibility and obligation to be part of and care take the whole of nature.

Human existence on Mother Earth was only possible because certain beings enabled others to survive through their very existence. Reciprocal relationships of giving, gifting, swapping, and sharing embedded in the Tongva word maxaax and practiced with all of the nature…rock/stone, plant, animal, and air, water, fire and earth (
Figure 34; Torres n.d.a).

For the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) everything around them is seen as a relative (i.e., water, air, land, rocks, animals, plants, etc.), not resources to be used by humans. This view recognizes the reciprocal relationship that was established at creation. Mr. Torres also teaches that before sustainability protocols such as the “reduce, reuse and recycle” campaign can be implemented, people need to know the other three R’s: Recognition, Respect, and Responsibility (

3. This section does not reflex the views of the Kizh.
94 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 75
Figure 35).

In other words, the public needs to recognize the indigenous people of the land, the original caretakers and recognize the special relationship as described above. This also includes ensuring, as LWCA is doing through this study, that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) can continue this relationship unfettered. The second R stands for respect; respect that the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) and their relatives have co-evolved with each other for thousands of years.

The last R stands for responsibility, that the public and the Tongva have a responsibility to the relatives to protect their habitat and ensure their continued survival.

As a result of these teachings, the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) community is looking for spaces and places where they can fulfill the obligations given to them through their oral traditions. The Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva) community is looking to re-establish and/or strengthen their relationships to the land and relatives. This would include space to plant, tend, harvest, etc. plants.

Figure 34. Relationships to relatives (Torres n.d.a)
Relational ~Reciprocity
95 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 76
Figure 35. The other three Rs (Torres n.d.b).

PUVUNGNA
The location of the creation of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and the Acjachemen was at Puvungna, an important ceremonial center located north of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex area. Portions of the National Register for Historic Places (NRHP)-listed Puvungna Indian Villages lay on the campuses of California State University, Long Beach, the Veterans Affairs Long Beach Healthcare System (VALBHS), and Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens (see Appendix C, Figure C - 10). In Tongva puvu = big ball of people, ngna = place of (personal communication, Craig Torres).

According to Boscana (1846:32, 33), in versions of the coastal creation story documented from the Acjachemen (Juañeno) but also applicable to the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh), two The Other 3 Rs
the indigenous of
th e area
, f
f
f ,
to ensure the
continuance of natrve
indigenous species
96 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 77
influential deities, Ouiot, the monster-chief, and Chingichngish, the supreme-creator god, emerged, at different times, at the village of Puvungna with Ouiot being burned there and Chingichngish dying there. Millikan and Hildebrandt (1997:15) summarize of the roles of Ouiot and Chingichngish in the origin stories among the Juaneño, Luiseño, and Gabrielino:
[T]hree successive sets of power entities or beings were involved with the creation of the world and institution of religious life. The first generation, a brother/sister set of entities took the form of sky and earth. They created the second generation, the First People, entities whose essences are now found in certain animals, certain ritual objects, and certain rocks, hills, and mountains. One of those entities, Ouiot (Wiyut), became the “captain” or “father” of all the First People. Following the death of Ouiot, the First People assumed their present forms and humans as we know them were created. Chingichngish, the third generation of power entities, appeared among people for a short time as a teacher.

He remains active in the background of existence, as the source of both positive power and punishment for behavior.

After Ouiot was killed, a very large gathering of Ouiot’s people cremated his body at Puvungna.

After the ceremonies, Chingichngish appeared and taught the people laws and established the rites and ceremonies needed for the preservation of life (Boscana 1846:33). He also taught the people what to wear, how to heal the sick, how to build the ceremonial structure (yovaar), how to rear the children, and how to live according to his laws (Boscana 1846:33-34). The toloache ritual, which involved the ingestion of the intoxicating Datura meteloides (also known as Jimson weed), was also associated with the Chingichngish belief system.

Although Boscana identified the Chingichngish belief system as having begun at Puvungna, others have recorded its origination from either Santa Catalina Island or San Clemente Island (Kroeber 1925:621-622). A Luiseño informant told Dubois (1908) that the Chingichngish religion came from the north, then to Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands, to San Juan Capistrano, to San Luis Rey, and finally to the San Diego Kumeyaay/Diegueno territory. The spread of this belief system likely followed the same routes that goods and other cultural ideas followed. Some scholars argue that the Chingichngish belief system originated post-contact based on its similarities to Christian themes and motifs (Bean and Vane 1978:699; Lepowsky 2004).

The village site was still known historically as it was occupied at least until 1805 as evident by baptisms of individuals from the village at San Gabriel Mission and San Juan Capistrano (Harrington 1934:149).
97 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 78
In the original NRHP nomination of the Puvungna Indian Villages, archaeological sites CALAN- 234, CA-LAN-235 and CA-LAN-306 were identified as being the best representative sites to represent Puvungna on the register (Dixon 1973). Both CA-LAN- 234 and CA-LAN-235 are identified as being located on the CSU, Long Beach and VA campuses and CA-LAN-306 is located at Rancho Los Alamitos. However, Dixon mentions that the location of Puvungna moved through time, on the small hill that overlooks swamps and marshes. As a result, the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians has identified that the location of Puvungna includes: CA-LAN-102, CA-LAN-231 thru 236, CA-LAN-270 and 271, CA-LAN273 thru 275, CA-LAN-306, CA-LAN- 699 thru 705, CA-LAN-830 and 831, CA-LAN-1000 thru 1007. Most of these are located on CSULB campus, the furthest away being CA-LAN-270 (known as the Los Altos site) which is located 1 mile north of campus (3.9 miles north-northwest of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex).

The portion of Puvungna that is located on the CSULB campus continues to be used by the Gabrielino/Tongva, Acjachemen and greater Native American community. Community gatherings, ceremonies, classes, and other cultural activities are held on site ( Figure 36 and Figure C - 11). Ancestor poles, wooden poles in honor of Gabrielino and Acjachemen Tribal members that have passed away, dot the area.

Figure 36. Prayer pole decorated for solstice at Puvungna at CSULB. 98 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 79
Figure 37. Discussions at Puvungna at CSULB with Tongva walk participants, July 20, 2019.

Figure 38. Reburial at Puvungna at CSULB in 2016 (left to right) Steve Villa, CSU Chancellor Timothy White, CSULB President Jane Close Conoley, NAGPRA Coordinator Cindy Alvitre, CSULB’s Director of American Indian Studies Craig Stone and NAGPRA Chair Louis Robles Jr. (Daily 49’er 2016).

The reburial of Gabrielino ancestors, repatriated from museums under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) have recently occurred within the boundaries of the Puvungna village site outside the Southern LCW Project area as well (Figure C - 10).
99 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 80

MOTUUCHEYNGNA
As previously stated, Motuucheyngna village has been identified as being located to the east and outside the Southern LCW Project area on what is now called Heron Point, a residential community that was built in the early 2000s, located on Landing Hill (Appendix C, Figure C - 10; Cleland et al. 2007). Motuuchey was identified by Harrington informant Jose de la Santos Juncos as being located at “El Puerto de los Alemanes [Port of the Germans]” also known as Anaheim Landing. Motuuchey was reported to mean flea in Gabrielino (Harrington 1986:R104 F24).

In 1997, the Hellman Properties LLP proposed a mixed residential development located on Landing Hill. The city of Seal Beach had prepared an EIR for the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan which identified that the archaeological sites that were located within the Southern LCW Restoration Project area would be adversely affected and thus a testing and data recovery plan was created and carried out by EDAW in 2001. During construction grading in 2002, two Native American remains were identified within the boundaries of ORA-264 by the Native American monitor (Cleland et al. 2007:5). Construction was halted by the CCC until a Supplemental Mitigation Plan (SMP) could be drafted. At total of 6 sites were tested and data recovered (CAORA-260-264 and ORA-1472). Work outlined within the SMP was conducted from 2003 to 2005. Thirty-five individuals were removed. The ancestors and all cultural items were reburied within a cultural easement located within the Heron Point parcel.

Radiocarbon and obsidian hydration dates taken at all of the sites tested showed that the area was first occupied by at least 6380 cal BP (4430 B.C.), the Millingstone 2 period with the last occupation occurring at 530 cal BP (1420 A.D.) (Cleland et al. 2007:52). Sites CA-ORA-260- 264, CA-ORA-850-852, and ORA-1472 are considered the Motuucheyngna Village and was identified as a sacred land to the Native American Heritage Commission in 2019 by the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians.

As part of the SMP, a Cultural Preservation Area was created over the area of the highest density of burials with tribal access to it in perpetuity. The Hellman Ranch Trail was created that links Heron Point to Gum Grove Park. Interpretative signage and a gathering circle were also created (Figure C - 9 and Figure C - 8). Members of the Gabrielino(Gabrieleño, Tongva) and greater Native American community have used the gathering circle as a meeting place. 100
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 81
Figure 39. Sign along the Hellman Ranch trail.

Figure 40. Overview of gathering place created along the trail connecting Heron Point and Gum Grove Park
From the Mountains
to the Sea
Landing Hill io; wi1hin th<' rcrriton of rhe
GabricJino Tong\.·,,, \\ho lived along lhl• coasr
frorn roughly Malihu to Ali<,,o Creek, inland
to the San Gabriel \1ountaim and Ri\'crsidc,
,tnd on rhe islands of Santa Carnlina.
",an Nicol,1,, ,in<l San Clem<'nte.

The Gabri<'lino Tongva peoph.• had .:u:c:t>S\
a rich varil'tv of natural resources, and.
of che region'~ \.\c,1hh1C\t
vill<1g<''i were ~o,nr _ di~ram.·e
\\,b u\C"d pri111.tr1I,- hJ
101
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 82

CONNECTION BETWEEN LOS CERRITOS WETLANDS COMPLEX, PUVUNGNA AND

MOTUUCHEYNGNA
The investigation of the ethnographic record did not identify any specific information on the Los Cerritos Wetlands or connections between these three locations; however, four tribal interviewees did state that the three places were probably connected based on the documented settlement patterns and knowledge of the trade routes in the area. As summarized in the Tribal Feedback section above, Ms. Bogany stated that the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex was the connector from the ocean to Puvungna and Motuucheyngna. Mr. Rocha also talked about how the Gabrielino used the rivers, in particular the San Gabriel River, in this instance to connect to other villages throughout Gabrielino Territory. Mr. Rocha said:

I don’t have no information on the villages, exactly. But I know that the river itself was made, uh, made a route for trade and commerce within the Native community. You could canoe or kayak from one point to another relatively pretty easy. Within a span of two and a half hours you could be here from the heart of San Gabriel Valley, by canoe. So, there are a lot of resources that grow here and only here, like the pickleweed, were relatively desired by the other Native communities. You know, this was a big source of trade as well. Like I said, the water, those were our freeways back in the day, you know? Even the freeways run along them now show the same route and usefulness, basically, but just on a different kind of media. So, if we look at it from that point of view, yeah, the water is how they connected us as a community with the other communities: the water community and Earth communities. It played a big role, a huge role, I would say; absolutely, yes. As much as you would need a transponder to take a freeway nowadays, yeah, that’s how important they were to us, in comparison.

Mr. Torres concurred:

And so I don’t know how some of the villages are connected, but I can guarantee you that they were connected to each other. You know, if you’re looking at sources of life, like the food sources and any other source that was abundant in one area, you know people were trading it because people weren’t isolated. You look at the trade networks that connected us from the islands going all the way up to Mojave and who knows how far south. But that tells you right there that people were trading. So, if they were trading that far you know the villages connected up here were trading extensively. Because that’s part of your survival. I mean that’s just common sense to me is like, you know, you don’t stand isolated, alone, and live in your community by yourself. You’re constantly trading with other people, so yeah, the communities were definitely connected. In what ways? I don’t102 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 83
know,- but that’s where archaeology will tell you whatever you’re finding in the site, that’s what the people were trading. And so (clears throat), it’s important to think about that because I’m always telling people that when you look at a map of California Indians and you see these nice little outlines, you know, that’s not the way our people were organized. It’s more like a connect the dots where you have one village connected to another, to another, to another, and it extends further out based on intermarriage, trade relationships, ceremony––all these things that were connecting people way out in the desert, way down south. So, definitely these communities were connected to each other.

During Tribal consultation conducted by the CCC for the Coastal Development Permit for the Los Cerritos Wetland Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2016041083), a number of representatives attested to the sacredness of the Los Cerritos Wetlands and its connection to Puvungna and Motuucheyngna.

In 2017, tribal representatives of the Gabrieleno-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, as well as a member of the Acjachemen Tribe described the project site as “sacred lands that are part of a larger area of connected tribal sites that constitute a Tribal Cultural Landscape that may be eligible for listing by the National Register as a Tribal Cultural Property. This Tribal Cultural Landscape includes several significant tribal sites and resources in close proximity to the project site, including the site of Puvungna, the Rancho Los Alamitos (Long Beach area), Hellman Ranch property [i.e. the Heron Point residential community] (immediately on the other side of the San Gabriel River, in Seal Beach) (CCC 2018: 125).

In 2018, representatives of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation stated that the Los Cerritos Wetlands area is a sacred land, just as all land, water and animals are sacred (CCC 2018: 125).

EVALUATING THE PUVUNGNA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE
Following National Register Bulletin 38

APPROACH
National Register Bulletin 38 provides guidelines for identifying TCPs and determining whether they meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4). This part of the report applies these guidelines to the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape. 103
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 84
THE PUVUNGNA CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AS A "PROPERTY"
National Register Bulletin 38 states that the first step in evaluating a traditional cultural place for National Register eligibility is to determine if the entity under consideration is a “property.” The definition of a “property” is as follows (National Register 1990:9):
(T)he National Register does not include intangible resources themselves. The entity evaluated must be a tangible property -- that is, a district, site, building, structure, or object.

The Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape is clearly a "property" -- physical real estate made up of publicly and privately owned parcels.

NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
National Register Bulletin 38 says that determining whether the property has “integrity” is the second step in evaluation. In order to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, a property must have “integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” (36 CFR Part 60). There are two distinct aspects of integrity that must be shown for the property to be included in the National Register.
(1) Does the property have an integral relationship to traditional cultural practices or beliefs?
(2) Is the condition of the property such that the relevant relationships survive?

INTEGRITY OF RELATIONSHIP
Assessing the integrity of the relationship between a property and the beliefs or practices that may give it significance involves understanding how the group that holds the beliefs or carries out the practices is likely to view the property. If the property is known or likely to be regarded by a traditional cultural group as important in the retention or transmittal of a belief, or to the performance of a practice, the property can be considered to have an integral relationship with the belief or practice, and vice-versa.

Although this study did not document any new information on the connection between the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex, and the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna the PTCL is important in the maintenance of Gabrielino and Acjachemen identity and the instruction of future generations in their cultural history. Through hard fought protests and negotiations with the landowners of CSULB, Rancho Los Alamitos and Heron Point, Gabrielino and Acjachemen 104
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 85
tribal members have access and use these spaces and places for community gatherings, ceremony and other traditional practices. Although access to the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex have been cut within the last 50+ years, tribal members share their family’s use of the area for traditional food and cultural practices as well as its connection to Puvungna and Motuucheyngna. Further, as discussed above, Tribal interviewees and Tribal representatives, during consultation with the CCC, see the PTCL as significant to their Tribes. Based on these elements, the integrity of the relationship exists.

INTEGRITY OF CONDITION
The question of physical alteration to a property is addressed as follows (National Register 1990:10).

Like any other kind of historic property, a property that once had traditional cultural significance can lose such significance through physical alteration of its location, setting, design, or materials.

As has happened to many swaths of land in Southern California, the surface of the PTCL has changed over time and is definitely not the same as when Ouiot created the ‘Amuupavetam or when Chingichngish came and instructed the Gabrielino and Acjachemen on how to live.

Bulletin 38 emphasizes that (National Register 1990:10):
… the integrity of traditional cultural properties must be considered with reference to the views of traditional practitioners; if its integrity has not been lost in their eyes, it probably has sufficient integrity to justify further evaluation.

Tribal interviewees and Tribal representatives, during consultation with the CCC, have stated that the PTCL is still significant to their community, even with all the changes.

NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA
The third step prescribed by Bulletin 38 is to evaluate a property against the National Register Criteria (36 CFR 60.4). The PTCL is clearly associated with significant events in the traditional history and cultural life of the Gabrielino and Acjachemen Tribes. As previously discussed, the villages of Puvungna (represented by CA-LAN- 234, CA-LAN-235 and CA-LAN-306) is already listed on the National Register because it is the place of emergence of the Gabrielino and Acjachemen into this world. However, that nomination identified only three sites to represent Puvungna and did not connect it to other sites, both habitation and subsistence sites, that are part of the manifestation of the Puvungna use area. The Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians has identified CA-LAN-102, CA-LAN-231 thru 236, CA-LAN-270 and 271, CA-LAN-273 thru 275, CA-LAN-306, CA-LAN- 699 thru 705, CA-LAN-830 and 831, CA105 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 86
LAN-1000 thru 1007 as part of the Puvungna Village sites and has described the connection between Puvungna, Motuucheyngna (aka Puvungna East) and the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex. All of these qualify PTCL for inclusion in the National Register under Criterion A.

Although it is not necessary for a property to meet more than one of the National Register Criteria in order to be eligible for the NRHP, it could be argued that the PTCL is eligible under Criterion B for its association with historically significant “people,” in this case Ouiot and Chingichngish, the creator and an important leader in Gabrielino and Acjachemen history.

CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS
Step four in the evaluation process, according to Bulletin 38, is to determine whether any of the National Register “criteria considerations” apply. These “considerations” describe circumstances under which a property that might otherwise be eligible is not eligible. In effect they are criteria of ineligibility, but each allows for exceptions under which properties that might appear ineligible under the considerations are in fact eligible (Parker and King 1993:32).

Consideration A says that a “religious property” -- one owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes – “requires additional justification” in determining eligibility “because of the necessity to avoid any appearance by government about the merit of any religion or belief.” Bulletin 38 notes that applying this consideration can be “fraught with the potential for ethnocentrism and discrimination,” noting that “(a)pplying the ‘religious exclusion’ without careful and sympathetic consideration to properties of significance to a traditional cultural group can result in discriminating against the group by effectively denying the legitimacy of its history and culture” (National Register 1990:13).

Although many Native American cultures, including the Gabrielino and Acjachemen, see “religion” as inextricably interwoven with culture and history, the PTCL is not a religious property and thus is not disqualified under Criteria Consideration A.

Considerations B (relocated properties), C (birthplaces and graves), D (cemeteries), E (reconstruction), F (commemoration) and G (significance achieved within the last fifty years) do not apply to the PTCL.

SUMMARY
The PTCL meets the criteria of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and has sufficient integrity to justify being regarded as eligible for the Register. The area is recommended eligible for the National Register as a Traditional Cultural Property. Since it is recommended for the National Register, it is automatically recommended as eligible for the CRHR.
106
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 87

CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATION
To be eligible for the CRHR a resource must:

1. be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history;

2. be associated with the lives of significant persons of the past;

3. embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity those components may lack individual distinction; or

4. yielded or may likely yield information important in history or prehistory.

In addition to having significance using the above criteria, resources must have “integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” to the period of significance. The period of significance is the date or span of time within which significant events transpired, or significant individuals made their important contributions.

Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity as evidenced by the survival of characteristics or historic fabric that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Alterations to a resource or changes in its use over time may have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. Simply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance.

Six new cultural resources and three previously recorded sites are located within the Southern LCW Restoration Project area.

ISOLATES
Two prehistoric isolates, 2021_08_05_SD.1-I (one piece of obsidian debitage) and 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I (prehistoric isolate consisting of 1 prehistoric exfoliated granitic unifacial mano and an exfoliated chalcedony scraper), were identified within the Southern LCW Restoration Project area. Extended Phase I testing in September/October 2022 confirmed that these resources lie upon imported fill and have no associated subsurface cultural deposits.

Isolates are not eligible for listing on the CRHR and need no further consideration. 107
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 88

NEWLY RECORDED SITES
2021_08_06_SD.1 is a historic-age refuse site consisting of two piles of wood planks and boards, a pile of broken concrete, and some metal scraps. The wood and concrete exhibited no diagnostic features and did not extend subsurface. Based on the fieldwork, recordation, and background research conducted on this site, the site is recommended as not eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. No information has been found to suggest that this site is directly associated with events or persons that are significant in local, state, or national history (CRHR Criteria 1 and 2). There are no elements recorded for the site that would qualify as significant under CRHR Criterion 3.

All data was collected when this resource was recorded, exhausting its potential to provide important information about prehistory within the region, state, or nation (CRHR Criterion 4).

No further work is needed.
2021_08_06_SD.2 is a historic-age refuse site consisting of deteriorated red bricks, a pile of tile fragments, and a historic soda fired ceramic pipe sherd. The bricks, tile fragments and ceramic sherd do not exhibit diagnostic features and the site did not extend subsurface. Based on the fieldwork, recordation, and background research conducted on this site, the site is recommended as not eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. No information has been found to suggest that this site is directly associated with events or persons that are significant in local, state, or national history (CRHR Criteria 1 and 2). There are no elements recorded for the site that would qualify as significant under CRHR Criterion 3. All data was collected when this resource was recorded, exhausting its potential to provide important information about prehistory within the region, state, or nation (CRHR Criterion 4). No further work is needed. 2021_08_06_SD.3 is a prehistoric site consisting of a lithic scatter of a quartz flake, a modified tool of pink quartzite, and a gray quartzite scraper. Although the site contains two tools that may be indicative of resource processing site, the artifacts lay on the surface of documented fill consisting of sediments from the dredging of the San Gabriel River (Appendix M, Figure M - 1).

Extended Phase I testing in September/October 2022 found one lithic flake and four potential lithic flakes below surface but these were in context with modern plastic trash debris. No intact prehistoric cultural deposit was found associated with the resource. Presence of modern debris below the surface confirms that the surface artifacts are in secondary context Based on the fieldwork, recordation, background research, and phase I testing conducted on this site, the site is recommended as not eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. No information has been found to suggest that this site is directly associated with events or persons that are significant in local, state, or national history (CRHR Criteria 1 and 2). There are no elements recorded for the site that would qualify as significant under CRHR Criterion 3. All data was collected when this 108
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 89
resource was recorded exhausting its potential to provide important information about prehistory within the region, state, or nation (CRHR Criterion 4). No further work is needed.

HELLMAN CHANNEL
Theme: Water conveyance system-Drainage
Period of Significance: ca. 1928-1976
This channel is associated with the historic theme of a water conveyance system (drainage ditch) located within the boundaries of the e Hellman Ranch which functioned as a successful cattle ranch and farming enterprise for multiple decades. The Hellman Channel is an unlined gravity fed system which is considered unremarkable in its construction or design. While this channel is associated with the Hellman Ranch, it was constructed eight years after the passing of the ranch’s owner, I.W. Hellman in 1920. It is believed that this drainage ditch was constructed primarily for the support of the oil wells which were active nearby.

This segment of the Hellman Channel still retains most of its integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship, and Feeling. While the channel is no longer used in conjunction with the operations of the former Hellman Ranch, it still retains is use as a drainage ditch, therefore it retains some of its integrity of Association. There is notable loss of the channel’s integrity of Setting due to visible development of residences along the southern boundary of the Los Cerritos Wetlands.

Based on the fieldwork, recordation, and background research conducted on this site, the site is recommended as not eligible for independent inclusion on the NRHP or CRHR. No information has been found to suggest that this site is directly associated with events or persons that are significant in local, state, or national history (NRHP Criteria A and B or the CRHR Criteria 1 and 2). There are no elements recorded for the site that would qualify as significant under NRHP Criterion C or the CRHR Criterion 3. All data was collected when this resource was recorded, exhausting its potential to provide important information about prehistory within the region, state, or nation (NRHP Criterion on D or the CRHR Criterion 4). No further work is needed.

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES
P-30-000256 (LANDING HILL #1) was recorded as a prehistoric habitation site with milling stones located on Landing Hill. The site was surface collected for many years prior to being recorded and much of it has been destroyed by development (McKinney 1969a based on information from Redwine 1959). The portion of the site within the LCW Project area was revisited and no cultural resources were identified. Based on the fieldwork, recordation, and background research conducted on this site, the site is recommended as not eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. No information has been found to suggest that this site is directly associated with 109
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 90
events or persons that are significant in local, state, or national history (CRHR Criteria 1 and 2).

There are no elements recorded for the site that would qualify as significant under CRHR Criterion 3. No intact cultural deposits were identified, thus it does not have the potential to provide important information about prehistory within the region, state, or nation (CRHR Criterion 4). No further work is needed.

P-30-000258 (LANDING HILL #3) AND P-30-000260 The portions of P-30-000258 (habitation site) and P-30-000260 (seasonal camp) within the Southern LCW Project area were not surveyed as they were covered by dense vegetation. As a result, both sites could not be evaluated for listing on the CRHR. It is recommended that these sites be avoided until such time they can be evaluated for the CRHR.

CONCLUSIONS
This study was conducted to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources during the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (Project) as well as to document the Los Cerritos Wetlands Traditional Cultural Landscape, as named in the PEIR and now known as the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PTCL). The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This Project is located within the southern portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex, on the border of Los Angeles and Orange counties, and affords the opportunity to restore salt marsh, seasonal wetlands, and other freshwater wetlands within an approximately 503-acre area. The Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex adjoins the lower reach of the San Gabriel River where, prior to channelization, the mouth of the San Gabriel River migrated back and forth across the coastal plain. Historically, the complex covered approximately 2,400 acres and stretched approximately two miles inland, varying from freshwater and brackish wetlands in its inland areas to salt marsh closer to the ocean.

For this study, Cogstone requested a supplementary cultural records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center extending the search radius to three miles around the Los Cerritos Complex, completed background research and attempted consultation with historic societies, performed limited pedestrian survey including site recordation, and collected oral histories from members of Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) Tribes. These efforts gathered data for a cultural resources assessment of the Project area, prehistoric and historic documentation of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, and an CRHR/NRHP eligibility evaluation of the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape (PCTL; see Appendix C, Figure C - 11) as a traditional cultural property (TCP).
110
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 91
Nine cultural resources are located within the Southern LCW Restoration Project area. Six of these are newly recorded as part of this Project, and three were previously recorded.

The newly recorded resources consist of two prehistoric cultural isolates (2021_08_05_SD.1-I and 2021_08_28_DRM_1.I) that were tested in September/October 2022 and confirmed to not have accompanying intact cultural deposits, two historic-aged refuse sites (2021_08_06_SD.1 and 2021_08_06_SD.2), a prehistoric lithic scatter site (2021_08_06_SD.3) also tested in September/October 2022 and found not to contain intact cultural deposits, and the Hellman Channel. Three previously recorded sites include P-30-000256 (Landing Hill #1), P-30-000258 (Landing Hill #3), and P-30-000260. All newly identified resources were recorded using DPR 523 series forms. Cultural isolates are not eligible for inclusion on the CRHR and need no further consideration. The remaining newly identified resources were evaluated for CRHR eligibility and are recommended as not eligible for listing in the CRHR. The Hellman Channel was also evaluated for NRHP eligibility and is recommended as not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further work is recommended for any of these resources.

The previously recorded, P-30-000256 (Landing Hill #1) was revisited, surveyed, and revaluated using DPR 523 series forms. As no cultural resources were found during this visit, this site is also recommended as not eligible for listing in the CRHR, and no further work is recommended.

The remaining two previously recorded sites, P-30-000258 (Landing Hill #3), and P-30-000260, are covered by dense vegetation and could not be visited or reevaluated as part of this Project.

These sites should be avoided until they can be evaluated for CRHR listing eligibility.

Oral histories collected from members of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) Tribes, and other data collected and reviewed for this Project, indicate that the PTCL qualifies as a TCP under the four-part guidelines contained within National Register Bulletin 38. The guidelines consist of whether the potential TCP is a property; is an integral relationship between the group and the property; is in a condition to sustain the relationship; meets at least one of the criteria for listing in the NRHP; meet any of the criteria conditions that would make an otherwise eligible property not eligible for listing the NRHP.

The landscape is physical real estate comprised of public and private land and therefore qualifies as a “property.” The property is integral to the beliefs of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen Tribes and in a condition that these relationships survive. The PTCL satisfies NRHP eligibility Criterion A as it is clearly associated with significant events in the traditional history and cultural life of the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen Tribes. The PTCL is not a religious property nor does it meet any of the other National Register Eligibility Considerations that would disqualify an otherwise eligible property.

Thus, the PTCL is recommended as eligible for the CRHR/NRHP. 111
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 92
In lieu of new or additional mitigation measures, the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority should continue Native American consultation with the Gabrielino (Gabrieleño; Tongva; Kizh) and Acjachemen Tribes on an ongoing basis in order to mitigate any negative effects on the PTCL.

This collaboration will inform action from management and tribal perspectives. 112
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 93

REFERENCES CITED
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
2007 The Preserve America Summit: Charting a Future Course for the National Historic Preservation Program Findings and Recommendations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2018- 06/PA%20Summit%20Full%20Report.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014. 2011 Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes Action Plan, November 23, 2011. https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/guidance/2018- 06/NativeAmericanTCLActionPlanNovember232011.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014. 2012a Traditional Cultural Landscape in the Section 106 Review Process, March 19, 2012. https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-landing/traditional-cultural-landscapessection-106-review-process. Accessed June 5, 2014. 2012b Native American Traditional Cultural Landscapes and the Section 106 Review Process:

Questions and Answers. Issued on July 11, 2012.
https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/guidance/2018- 06/NativeAmericanTCLsintheSection106ReviewProcessQandAs.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2014.

Alioto, Laura L.
2005 Images of America; Seal Beach. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing.

Allen, M. W.
2011 Of Earth and Stone: Landscape Archaeology in the Mojave Desert. California Archaeology 3(1):11-30.

Anschuetz, K. F., R. H. Wilshusen, and C. L. Scheick
2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(2):157-211.

Archibald, Robert
1978 The Economic Aspects of the California Missions. Academy of American Franciscan History, Washington, D.C.

Arnold, J. E.
1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity, 57: 60-84.

Arnold, Jeanne E., and Julienne Bernard
113
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 94
2005 Negotiating the Coasts: Status and the Evolution of Boat Technology in California.

World Archaeology 37(1): 109–131.

Arnold, Jeanne E., Michael R. Walsh, and Sandra E. Hollimon 2004 The Archaeology of California. Journal of Archaeological Research, 12 (1): 1-73.

Ashmore, W., and A. B. Knapp
1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized and Ideational. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by W. Ashmore and A.

B. Knapp, pp. 1-32. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Massachusetts.

Aston, M., and T. Rowley
1974 Landscape Archaeology: An Introduction to Fieldwork Techniques on Post-Roman Landscapes. David and Charles, Newton Abbot, UK.

Barrows, H.D.
1899 Abel Stearns. Published in the Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California and Pioneer Register, Los Angeles. Vol. 4, No. 3 (1899), pp. 197-199.

Bean, L. J., and S. Brakke Vane, eds.
1978 Persistence and Power: A Study of Native American Peoples in the Sonoran Desert and the Devers-Palo Verde High Voltage Transmission Line. Submitted to Southern California Edison by Cultural Systems Research, Menlo Park, California.

Bean, L. J., and F. C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, edited by R. F.

Heizer, pp. 550-563 (W. T. Sturtevant, general editor). The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, L. J., and C. R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. California, volume edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549 (W. T. Sturtevant, general editor). The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Birnbaum, C. A
1994 Preservation Brief 36 Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Bleitz-Sanburg, D. E.
1987 The Changing Exploitation of Mammalian and Avian Food Resources at SNI-11. 114
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 95
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Los Angeles.

Bleitz, D. E., and R. A. Salls
1993 A prehistoric Fishing Kit from San Clemente Island, California. In Hochberg, F. G. (ed.), Third California Islands Symposium: Recent Advances in Research on the California Islands, pp. 537–549. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, California.

Boscana, Gerónimo
1846 Chinigchinich: A Historical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta-California; Called the Acagcahemem Nation. Wiley & Putnam, New York.
1933 Chinigchinich: Historical Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs, and Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. John P. Harrington, anno. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Boxt, Matthew, and Brian Dillon
2013 Prehistoric Pottery of Coastal Los Angeles County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 47(3&4): 45-87.

Byrd, Brian, and L. Mark Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory, edited by Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, pp. 215-227. Altamira Press, New York.

Cassidy, Jim, L. Mark Raab, and Nina A. Kononenko
2004 Boats, Bones, and Biface Bias: The Early Holocene Mariners of Eel Point, San Clemente Island, California. American Antiquity 69(1):109–130.

Cleland, James, Andrew York, and Lorraine Willey
2007 Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered. EDAW Cultural Publications No. 3.

California Coastal Commission (CCC)
2018 Coastal Development Permit Application for the Los Cerritos Wetland Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project. On file at the California Coastal Commission, San Francisco.

Coastal Restoration Consultants
2021 The Los Cerritos Wetlands Habitat Restoration Plan. Prepared for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority and ESA.
115
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 96
Corle, Edwin
1949 The Royal Highway. Bobbs-Merrill Copman, Inc., New York.

Cosgrove, D. E.
1985 Prospect, Perspective and the Evolution of the Landscape Idea. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 10:45-62.

Dixon, Dean O.
2004 Images of America: Buena Park. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.

Dixon, Keith
1973 National Register of Historic Places Nomination of the Puvungna Indian Village Sites.

Dobyns, H. F.
1984 Trade Centers: The Concept and a Rancherian Culture Area Example. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 8(1): 23-35.

Drake, Barbara, Lorene Sisquoc, Craig Torres, Abe Sanchez, Daniel McCarthy, Leslie Mouriquand, and Deborah Small
2016 Cooking the Native Way. Heyday, Berkeley, California.

DuBois, Constance Goddard
1908 The Religion of the Luiseño Indians of Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(3):69–186.

Earle, David D
2020 Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Ethnographic Study, San Diego County, California.

Eerkens, J. W., J. S. Rosenthal, D. C. Young, and J. King 2007 Early Holocene Landscape Archaeology in the Coso Basin, Northwestern Mojave Desert, California. North American Archaeologist 28(2):87-112.

Erlandson, Jon, Douglass J. Kennett, Lynn Ingram, Daniel Guthrie, Don P. Morris, Mark A.

Tveskov, G. James West and Phillip L. Walker
1996 An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California. Radiocarbon, 38 (2):355–373.

Erlandson, Jon M., Michael H. Graham, Bruce J. Bourque, Debra Corbett, James A. Estes, and Robert S. Steneck
2007 The Kelp Highway Hypothesis: Marine Ecology, the Coastal Migration Theory, and the Peopling of the Americas. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 2: 2, 161– 116
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 97
174.

Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Terry Jones, and Judy Porcasi 2007 One If by Land, Two If by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In California Prehistory, edited by Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, pp. 53-62. Altamira Press, New York.

Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Todd J. Braje, Molly Casperson, Brendan Culleton, Brian Fulfrost, Tracy Garcia, Daniel A. Guthrie, Nicholas Jew, Douglas J. Kennett, Madonna L.

Moss, Leslie Reeder, Craig Skinner, Jack Watts, Lauren Willis 2011 Paleoindian Seafaring, Maritime Technologies, and Coastal Foraging on California’s Channel Islands. Science (331) 6021:1181-1185.

ESA
2019 Appendix D Cultural Resources Assessment. Report. Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Program, Los Angeles County and Orange County, California. Prepared for Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority. Prepared by ESA.
2020 Sediment Dynamics Analysis technical report. Prepared for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Programmatic EIR.

Fitzgerald, Richard, Terry L. Jones, and Adella Schroth 2005 Ancient Long-Distance Trade in Western North America: New AMS Radiocarbon Dates from Southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (2005) 423–434.

Fleming, K.
1997 Cultural Landscape Study of Lost Valley, San Diego County, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 10:29-35, edited by J. Reed, G. Greenway, and K.

McCormick.

Gamble, Lynn H.
2005 Culture and Climate: Reconsidering the Effect of Palaeoclimatic Variability among Southern California Hunter-gatherer Societies. World Archaeology 37(1)92–108.

Gamble, Lynn H. and Chester King
1997 Middle Holocene Adaptations in the Santa Monica Mountains. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene. Edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, pp. 61-72. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Gates, Thomas, Michael McGuirt, and Melissa Mourkas
2013 Palen Solar Generating System Final Assessment – Part B: Cultural Resources Section. 117
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 98
http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/09-AFC07C/TN200564_20130923T153458_Palen_Solar_Electric_Generating_System_Final_St aff_Assessment.pdf, accessed March 13, 2014.

Glasgow, Lindsey
2021 “Fast Facts: Anaheim Landing: From Port to Housing to Naval Base”. The Log:

California Boating & Fishing News. Available at: https://www.thelog.com/local/fastfacts-anaheim-landing-from-port-to-housing-to-naval-base/, accessed: July 29, 2021.

Glassow, M. A
1980 Recent Developments in the Archaeology of the Channel Islands. In The California Islands: Proceedings of a Multidisciplinary Symposium, edited by D. M. Power, pp. 79-

99. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara.

Gnerre, Sam
2010 Redondo Beach’s Salt Lake. Daily Breeze, May 19, 2010.

Hale, Horatio
1846 United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1838, 1839, 1810, 1811, 1812.

Under the Command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N. Ethnography and Philology. Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia.

Harrington, John P.
1917–1930s The Papers of John P. Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution 1907–1957:

Volume Three, Microfilm.
https://edan.si.edu/slideshow/viewer/?damspath=/Public_Sets/NMNH/NMNH-RCAnthropology/NMNH-RC-Anth-Archives/NMNH-RC-Anth-Archives-NAA/NAAHarrington/NAA-Harrington-Microfilm/NAA-Harrington_mf6_r03, accessed December 22, 2015.
1934 A New Original Version of Boscana’s Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 92(4):1-62.

Washington, D.C.

Heizer, Robert and Albert Elsasser
1980 The Natural World of the California Indians. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Howard, V.
2002 Santa Catalina’s Soapstone Vessels: Production Dynamics. In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D. R. Browne, K. L. Mitchell, and H. W.

Chaney, pp. 598-606. U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 118
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 99
Hudson, Dee
1971 Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in South Coastal California. Pacific Coast Archaeology Society Quarterly 7(2): 51-71.

James, George Wharton
1913 The Old Franciscan Missions of California. The Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13854/13854-h/13854-h.htm, accessed October 20, 2014.

Johnston, Bernice E.
1962 California’s Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund No. 8. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Johnson, John R., and Stephen O’Neil
2001 Descendants of Native Communities in the Vicinity of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton: An Ethnohistoric Study of Luiseño and Juaneño Cultural Affiliation: Final Report. Prepared for Assistant Chief of Staff, Environmental Security, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, United States Marine Corps. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California and Science Applications International Corporation, Santa Barbara, California.

Johnson, John R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Henry O. Ajie, and Don P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. In Proceeding of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D.R. Brown, K.L. Mitchell and H. W. Chaney, pp. 541-545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara.

Jurmain, Claudia, Lavender, David, and Meyer Larry L.
2011 Rancho Los Alamitos: Ever Changing, Always the Same. Global Imprint, Hong Kong.

Kennett, Douglas J., and James P. Kennett
2000 Competitive and Cooperative Responses to Climatic Instability in Coastal Southern California. American Antiquity 65(2):379–395
King, Chester
1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before AD 1804. Garland Publishing, New York.
2001 Early Southern California. In Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 6: North America, edited by Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember, pp. 144-157. 2004 Ethnographic Overview of the Angeles National Forest: Tataviam and San Gabriel Mountain Serrano Ethnohistory. Prepared for the Angeles National Forest. Prepared by 119
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 100
Northwest Economic Associates and Topanga anthropological Consultants.

King, Chester, and Jeff Parsons
2014a Draft Chapters 1-6. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Report. Sent via email on June 4, 2014. In possession of D. Martinez.

King, L. B.
1982 The Medea Creek Cemetery (LAn-243): Late Inland Patterns of Social Organization, Exchange, and Warfare. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Koerper, Henry C.
1979 On the Question of the Chronological Placement of Shoshonean Presence in Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(3):69–94.

Koerper, Henry C., R. D. Mason, and M. L. Peterson
2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 63–81. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Kowta, M.
1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology Vol. 6. University of California, Berkeley.

Kroeber, A. L.
1907 Shoshonean Dialects of California. (Vol. 4, No. 1-6). The University Press. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.

Kryder-Reid, E.
2007 Sites of Power and Power of Sight. In Sites Unseen: Landscape and Vision, edited by D.

Harris and D. Fairchild Ruggles, pp. 181-212. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.

Laylander, D., and J. Schaefer
2010 Draft Chuckwalla Valley Prehistoric Trails Network Cultural Landscape: Historic Context, Research Questions, and Resource Evaluation Criteria. California Energy Commission, Sacramento.
120
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 101
Lepowsky, Maria
2004 Indian Revolts and Cargo Cults. In Reassessing Revitalization Movements: Perspectives from North America and the Pacific Islands, edited by Michael Eugene Harkin, pp. 1-60.

Lightfoot, Kent, and Otis Parrish
2009 California Indians and Their Environment: An Introduction. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Loew, Oscar
1876 Notes upon the Ethnology of Southern California and Adjacent Regions. In Annual Report of the U.S. War Department, Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1876, pp. 541– 547. Vol. 23. Appendix J.J., Part H.14. Washington, D.C.

Los Angeles Times
1920 “In Memory Isaias W. Hellman.” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California).

Published Wednesday, April 28, 1920. Page 28. Accessed September 7, 2021 using Newspapers.com.

Mandryk, Carole A. S., Heiner Josenhans, Daryl W. Fedje, and Rolf W. Mathewes 2001 Late Quaternary Paleoenvironments of Northwestern North America: Implications for Inland versus Coastal Migration Routes. Quaternary Science Reviews 20(1-3):301-314.

Marquez, Letisia
2014 UCLA linguist, Gabrielino-Tongva Indians use social media to revive extinct language. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ucla-linguist-gabrieleno-tongva-indians-use-socialmedia-to-revive-extinct-language, accessed October 5, 2014.

Martinez, D.
2010 (Re)searching for Ancestors Through Archaeology. In Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists, edited by George Nicolas, pp. 210-221. Altamira Press, Maryland.

Martinez, D., and W. Teeter
2015 Ho'eexokre 'eyookuuka'ro “We're working with each other”: The Pimu Catalina Island Project. Society for American Archaeology Record 15(1): 25-28.

Martinez, Desiree, Wendy G. Teeter, and Karimah O. Kennedy Richardson 2012 More Than This Arbitrary Bounded Space: Understanding Tongva Landscapes. Paper presented at the 112th Annual American Anthropological Association Conference, San Francisco, November 14, 2012.
121
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 102
Martinez, D. R., W. Teeter, and K. Kennedy-Richardson
2014 Returning the tataayiyam honuuka' (Ancestors) to the Correct Home: The Importance of Background Investigations for NAGPRA Claims. Curator 57(2):199-211.

Martz, Patricia
1984 Social Dimensions of Chumash Mortuary Populations in the Santa Monica Mountains Region. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 1994 A Research Design for Prehistoric Archaeological Sites San Nicolas Island, California.

Naval Air Weapons Station Point Mugu.

Mason, R. and M. Peterson
2014 Subsistence Remains and Intensification of the Newport Coast, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 49(1-1): 105-125.

McCawley, William
1996 First Angelinos: the Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press, Banning, California.
2002 A Tale of Two Cultures. In Islanders and Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, edited by J. Altschul and D. Grenda, pp. 41-66. SRI Press, Tucson.

Meighan, C. W.
1959 The little Harbor Site, Catalina Island: An Example of Ecological Interpretations in Archaeology. American Antiquity 24(4): 383–405.

Merriam, C. Hart
n.d. C. Hart Merriam papers. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://lccn.loc.gov/mm82032698. 1907 Tongva list. C. Hart Merriam papers. Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://lccn.loc.gov/mm820326.

Milliken, Randall, and William Hildebrandt
1997 Assessment of Archaeological Resources at the Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens. Prepared for the Rancho Los Alamitos Foundation. Prepared by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.

Mithun, Marianne
1999 Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press.

Moffat and Nichol
122
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 103
2015 Los Cerritos Wetlands Final Conceptual Restoration Plan. Prepared for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority, Azusa, California.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

National Park Service
1998 NPS- 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline. http://obpa-nc.org/DOIAdminRecord/0049518-0049814.pdf, accessed June 10, 2014.

National Register
1990 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf, Accessed 11/2/2020
Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture (NCRS) 2010 Indigenous Stewardship Methods and NRCS Conservation Practices. https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/MI/Indigenous_Stewardship_Methods_a nd_NRCS_Conservation_Practices_Guidebook-7-7-10.pdf, accessed May 1, 2021.

Nicholas, G. and T. Andrews
1997 Indigenous Archaeology in a Post-modern World. In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, edited by G. Nicholas and T. Andrews, pp. 1–18. SFU Archaeology Press, Burnaby.

Office of Federal Acknowledgement
2013 List of Petitioners. https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/assets/asia/ofa/admindocs/ListPetByState_2013-11-12.pdf, accessed September 1, 2021.

Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1935 “Anaheim Landing.” Office of Historic Preservation, California State Parks. Accessible at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/Detail/219, accessed July 29, 2021.

Parker, P. L., and T. F. King
1998 National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (1990; Revised 1992, 1998).

Perry, J. E., and C. Delaney-Rivera
2011 Interactions and Interiors of the Coastal Chumash: Perspectives from Santa Cruz Island 123
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 104
and the Oxnard Plain. California Archaeology 3:103-126.

Porcasi, Judith
1998 Middle Holocene Ceramic Technology on the Southern California Coast: New Evidence from Little Harbor Santa Catalina Island. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(2): 270-285.

Porcasi, Judith F., and Harumi Fujita
2000 The Dolphin Hunters: A Specialized Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation in the Southern California Channel Islands and Baja California. American Antiquity, 65(3), pp. 543-566.

Posadas, Lylliam, Wendy Teeter, Desiree Martinez, and Karimah O. Kennedy Richardson 2011 Less is More: Multi-Component Community Space on Pimu Catalina Island. Poster presented at the 76th Annual Society for American Archaeology Conference, San Francisco, California, April 1, 2011.

Raab, L. Mark, and William J. Howard
2002 Modeling Cultural Connections Between the Southern Channel Islands and Western United States: The Middle Holocene Distribution of Olivella Grooved Rectangle Beads.

In The Fifth California Islands Symposium, pp. 590-597.

Raab, Mark, Katherine Bradford, Judith F. Porcasi, and William J. Howard 1995 Return to Little Harbor, Santa Catalina Island, California: A Critique of the Marine Paleotemperature Model. American Antiquity 60 (2): 287-308.

Raab, L. Mark, and D. O. Larson
1997 Medieval Climatic Anomaly and Punctuated Cultural Evolution in Coastal Southern California. American Antiquity 62:319–336.

Ramirez, Rose, and Deborah Small
2015 Ethnobotany Project: Contemporary uses of Native Plants Southern California and Northern Baja Indians. Malki-Ballena Press, Banning, California.

Redwine, J. Peter
1958 Some Archaeological Sites on Landing Hill, Seal Beach.

Reid, Hugo
1968 The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid’s Letters of 1852. With comments by Robert F. Heizer. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.
124
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 105
Robinson, D. W., J. E. Perry, and G. Grasse-Sprague
2011 Landscape Archaeology in Southern and South-Central California. California Archaeology 3(1): 5-10.

Robinson, John W.
1977 Los Angeles in Civil War Days, 1860-1865. Dawson’s Book Shop, Los Angeles.

Rogers, D.B.
1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Rondeau, Michael F., Jim Cassidy, and Terry L. Jones
2007 Colonization Technologies: Fluted Projectile Points and the San Clemente Island Woodworking/Microblade Complex. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture and Complexity, edited by Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, pp. 53–62. Altamira Press, New York.

Rosen, M. D.
1980 Archaeological Investigations at Two Santa Catalina Sites: Rosski (SCAI-45) and Miner's Camp (SCAI-118). Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 16:22–60.

Rozaire, C. E.
1967 Archaeological Considerations Regarding the Southern California Islands. In: R.N.

Philbrick (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Biology of the California Islands, Santa Barbara Botanical Gardens, Inc., Santa Barbara, pp. 327–336.

San Francisco Examiner
1895 “A Madman’s Deed.” The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California).

Published Sunday, February 10, 1895. Page 16. Accessed September 7, 2021 through newspapers.com.

Saucedo, G. J., H. G. Greene, M. P. Kennedy, and S. P. Bezore 2016 Geologic map of the Long Beach 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series Map No. 5, version 2.0; map scale 1:100,000. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/rgmp/Prelim_geo_pdf/Long_Beach_100k_v2.0_Map.pdf Schoenherr, A. A.
2017 A Natural History of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Schwartz, S. J. and P. C. Martz
125
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 106
1992 An Overview of the Archaeology of San Nicolas Island, Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 28 (4): 46–75.

Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234. Berkeley, California Stoddard, S., and E. Zubrow
1999 Changing Places. Antiquity 73:686-688.

Strong, William Duncan
1972 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Strudwick, Ivan H.
1986 Temporal and Areal Considerations Regarding the Prehistoric Circular Fishhook of Coastal California. Master’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach.

Strudwick, I. H., R. McLean, J. Michalsky, B. Smith, and J. E. Baumann. 2007 A Glimpse of the Past on Pimu: Cultural Resource Survey, Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles County, California. LSA Associates. Submitted to Southern California Edison.

Copy available at the South Central Coastal Information Center.

Sutton, M.
2009 People and Language, Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2 and 3): 31-93.

Tartaglia, L. J.
1976 Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations in Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Teeter, W. G., and D. R. Martinez
2009 Native American perspectives of California archaeology. In Archaeology in America Encyclopedia, edited by L. S. Cordell, K. Lightfoot, F. McManamon, and G. Milner, pp. 20-26. Greenwood Publishing Group, Santa Barbara.

Torres, Craig
n.d.a Relational Reciprocity Card. In possession of author. n.d.b The Other 3 Rs Card. In possession of author.

Tyler, Hugh
126
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 107
2018 “The I. W. Hellman Ranch as I Remember It.” Our Los Al TV. https://ourlosal.tv/2018/10/20/the-i-w-hellman-ranch-as-i-remember-it-by-hugh-tyler/, accessed July 29, 2021.

United States of America Census Bureau
2013a Table 19. American Indian and Alaska Native Population by Tribe for California: 2010. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/cph-series/cph-t/cph-t-6.html, accessed May 9, 2014.
2013b Table 1. American Indian and Alaska Native Population by Tribe for the United States:
2010. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/cph-series/cph-t/cph-t-6.html, accessed May 9, 2014.

United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (USDANRCS) Official Soil Series Descriptions. Accessed September 2021 https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.aspx
University of California Davis National Resources Conservation Service California Soils Resource Lab (UCD SoilWeb). Accessed September 2021
http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb-apps/
Vellanoweth, R. L.
1995 New Evidence from San Nicolas Island Concerning the Distribution and Manufacture of Olivella Grooved Rectangle Beads. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 31(4):13–22.
2001 AMS Radiocarbon Dating and Shell Bead Chronologies: Middle Holocene Trade and Interaction in Western North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (9): 941– 950.

Wagner, D. L.
2002 California geomorphic provinces. California Geological Survey note 36. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/CGS-Notes/CGS-Note36.pdf.

Wallace, W.J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3): 214-230.

Wandsnider, L.
1992 Archaeological Landscape Studies. In Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by J. Rossignol and L. Wandersnider, pp. 285-292. Plenum, New York. 127
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 108
Warren, C. N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-15.

Webb, Edith Buckland
1983 Indian Life at the Old Missions. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Whatford, J. C.
1994 Patterns on the Land: Landscape Archaeology at Annadel State Park. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 7:159-164.

Wiley, Nancy Anastasia [Desautels]
2012 The Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Prehistoric Research Design “Compendium of Themes and Models: A Research Design for Analysis.” Bolsa Chica Technical Series, No.1. Scientific Resource Survey, Inc. Orange, California.

Wobst, M.
2005 Artifacts as Social Interference: The Politics of Spatial Scale. In Confronting Scale in Archaeology: Issues of Theory and Practice, edited by G. Lock and B. L. Molyneaux, pp. 55-66. Springer, New York.

Works Project Administration (WPA)
1936 Map of Orange County Artesian Water Belt Manuscript on file, First American Title Insurance Company, Santa Ana, California.

Yatsko, Andrew
2000 Late Holocene Paleoclimatic Stress and Prehistoric Human Occupation on San Clemente Island. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 128
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 109
APPENDIX A. QUALIFICATIONS
129
Cogstone 110
DESIREÉ RENEÉ MARTINEZ
Task Manager

EDUCATION
1999 M.A., Anthropology (Archaeology), Harvard University, Cambridge 1995 B.A., Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Martinez is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with 24 years of experience in archaeological fieldwork, research, and curation. She has expertise in the planning, implementation, and completion of all phases of archaeological work and has participated in archaeological investigations as a principal investigator, crew member, and tribal monitor. She exceeds the national standards in archaeology set by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. She is accepted as a Principal Investigator for prehistoric and historic archaeology by the State Office of Historic Preservation. Her experience also includes compliance with CEQA, NEPA, NHPA Sec. 106, NAGPRA, SB 18, AB 52, California General Order 131-D exemption, and other cultural resource laws. Ms. Martinez has managed technical assessments and prepared cultural resources sections for EIR and EIS documents.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Deep Soil Mixing Pilot Project, Community of Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles County, CA. As part of an on-call contract with the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (LABOE), Cogstone provided cultural and paleontological resources monitoring as well as managed Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities. The City of Los Angeles was the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Monitoring for the Project was conducted in compliance with the Contingency Plan conditions for the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC). No cultural or paleontological resources were identified. No further work was necessary. Sub to ICF. Task Manager. 2020 Veterans Affairs Long Beach Health Systems, Cultural Resources Services and Native American Monitoring, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. Managed a variety of public works and infrastructure improvements on the VALBHS campus. Services have included archaeological surveys, testing, archaeological monitoring, providing and managing Gabrielino (Tongva) Native American monitoring, and compliance reporting. Native American monitoring was provided on a rotating basis from several Gabrielino (Tongva) tribes as per a Memorandum of Agreement between the VALBHS, State Historic Perseveration Office. Projects on the campus have included: an intensive-level archaeological survey utilizing ground-penetrating radar and magnetometry to identify subsurface cultural debris, accurately map abandoned utilities, and locate a historic trash pit within the APE; archaeological and Native American monitoring of construction activities of the Fisher House and Golf Course project area. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2014-2018 California State University, Long Beach, On-Call Archaeological Services, Physical Planning and Facilities Management, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone managed archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavations or trenching for public works and buildings projects. Improvements to athletic fields, recycling center, parking lots, roads, outdoor dining, racetrack, liberal arts, and performing arts buildings. Task Manager/Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2015-2017 Kitts Highway Pathway Lighting Project, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, City of Seal Beach, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted cultural resources monitoring and managed Native American monitoring during the construction of an additional room and outdoor storage area. No cultural resources were observed or recovered. Upon completion of construction, a Cultural Resources Monitoring Compliance Report was produced.

Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2017
cogstone

PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY- HI STORY
130
Cogstone 111

JOHN GUST
Principal Investigator for Archaeology

EDUCATION
2016 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside (UCR) 2011 M.A., Anthropology, UCR
2007 M.A., Applied Geography, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs (UCCS) 2002 B.A., Anthropology, minor in Geography/Environmental Studies, UCCS

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Dr. Gust is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with 10 years of experience in field archaeology. He meets the qualifications required by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and hisfield expertise includes pedestrian surveys, excavation monitoring, resource recording, and historic artifact analysis. Dr. Gust has managed a variety of projects at Cogstone in the water, development, residential, transportation, telecommunications, and public works sectors. Dr. Gust is a member of the Society for California Archaeology, Society for American Archaeology, and the American Anthropological Association.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
San Gabriel River Commuter Bikeway and Big Dalton Wash Commuter Bikeway, City of Baldwin Park, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic built environment resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and historical resources for the proposed construction of approximately five miles of new bikeway/pedestrian pathway. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, preparation of DPR 523 forms, NRHP eligibility assessments, and reporting.

The project required a Section 408 permit from the USACE due to the proximity of the federally managed San Gabriel River and tributaries. All work performed complied with Section 106 of the NHPA. The City of Baldwin Park acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to Infrastructure Engineering Corporation. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2020-2021
University of California Natural Reserve System San Joaquin Marsh Reserve Water Conveyance and Drainage Improvement Project, City of Irvine, Orange County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and paleontological resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources for the proposed long-term water management improvements and habitat value of the Marsh Reserve. Services included pedestrian survey, records searches, Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, background research, subsurface testing, and reporting. Due to the proximity of the project to the San Diego Creek, the project required a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Section 106 NHPA compliance. University of California acted as the lead agency under CEQA and USACE acted as lead agency under NEPA. Sub to Moffat & Nichol. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2020-2021 Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment (MUST) Project, Los Angeles County, CA. In 2017, Cogstone prepared a cultural and paleontological resources assessment for the proposed construction of a stormwater facility. The project intended to improve the water quality of existing urban runoff to the Los Angeles River, and ultimately to the Long Beach Harbor. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, background research, built environment assessment, Native American consultation, and reporting. In 2020, Cogstone produced a Paleontological Resources Management Plan to propose effective mitigation of potential impacts to paleontological resources resulting from proposed construction of MUST and its associated Wetlands project. Sub to Michael Baker. Principal Investigator for Archaeology. 2020 cogstone

PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY- HI STORY
131
Cogstone 112

SHANNON LOPEZ
Architectural Historian

EDUCATION
2018 M.A., History (with an emphasis in architecture), California State University, Fullerton 2012 B.A., History, Minor in Asian-Pacific Studies, California State University, Dominguez Hills

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Ms. Lopez is a qualified historian and she meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural History. Ms. Lopez is experienced in architectural history research and surveys along with photo documentation and recording of built environment resources for local and federal projects. Ms. Lopez is acknowledged as an approved Architectural Historian by Caltrans. She has extensive knowledge with Native American consultation, consultation with city and county historical societies, and analysis of primary and secondary sources. Additionally, she is an approved Reader at the Huntington Library by the Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources.

The project required a Section 408 permit from the USACE due to the proximity of the federally managed San Gabriel River and tributaries. All work performed complied with Section 106 of the NHPA. The City of Baldwin Park acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to Infrastructure Engineering Corporation. Architectural Historian. 2020-2021
141st and Normandie Townhomes Project, City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone identified and evaluated the potential impacts to cultural, historic built environment, and paleontological resources for the proposed construction of 50 new, three-story townhomes, which will range in size from 1,252 to 1,689 square feet. Services included pedestrian survey, built environment evaluation, records searches, Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, background research, and reporting. The City of Gardena acted as lead agency under CEQA. Sub to De Novo Planning. Architectural Historian. 2020 Los Angeles Harbor College, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a study to determine the potential impacts to cultural resources for the proposed demolition, renovation, and construction at the college. Three of the building scheduled for demolition were considered historic in age and required evaluation under CEQA. Cogstone conducted a records search, historical society outreach, a pedestrian survey, and produced a Historic Resources Evaluation Report. Sub to PlaceWorks. Architectural Historian & Author. 2020 Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment (MUST) Project, Los Angeles County, CA. In 2017, Cogstone prepared a cultural and paleontological resources assessment for the proposed construction of a stormwater facility. The project intended to improve the water quality of existing urban runoff to the Los Angeles River, and ultimately to the Long Beach Harbor. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, background research, built environment assessment, Native American consultation, and reporting. In 2020, Cogstone produced a Paleontological Resources Management Plan to propose effective mitigation of potential impacts to paleontological resources resulting from proposed construction of MUST and its associated Wetlands project. Sub to Michael Baker. Architectural Historian. 2020 cogstone

PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY- HI STORY
132
Cogstone 113

KIM SCOTT
Geoarchaeologist

EDUCATION
2000 B.S., Geology with paleontology emphasis, University of California, Los Angeles 2013 M.S., Biology with paleontology emphasis, California State University, San Bernardino 2015 Immersion course in geomorphology/geoarchaeology, National Park Service

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Scott has more than 20 years of experience in California paleontology and sedimentary geology. She has extensive paleontology experience in the field and lab in surveying, monitoring, fossil salvage, taphonomy, locality mapping, fossil preparation, and report writing. She is experienced in preparing stratigraphic sections, determining paleoenvironment, and analyzing soils and geological maps for buried site potential. Scott serves as company safety officer and is the author of the company safety and paleontology manuals.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Faith Home/Garner Road Connection Project, Caltrans District 10, Stanislaus County, CA. Cogstone identified and evaluated cultural, paleontological, and historic resources present in or adjacent to the construction of a fourlane one-mile expressway. Cogstone produced an Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), Historic Properties Survey Report (HPSR), Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER), and Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (PIR-PER). Services included intensive level pedestrian surveys, mapping, records searches, DPR forms, and Native American consultation. Sub to Environmental Intelligence. Principal Investigator for Paleontology and Geoarchaeologist. 2017-2020
Interstate 605 and Katella, Caltrans District 12, City of Los Alamitos, Orange County, CA. The Orange County Transportation Authority with the California Department of Transportation District 12 and the City of Los Alamitos, proposed to update the I-605 and Katella Avenue interchange. Cogstone performed the survey, prepared a combined Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report, an Archaeological Survey Report with a geoarchaeological section on the potential for buried sites, a Historical Property Survey Report, and a Historical Resources Evaluation Report. Sub to WSP USA, Inc. Principal Investigator for Paleontology and Geoarchaeologist. 2018
State Route 57, Orangewood to Katella, Caltrans District 12, Cities of Orange and Anaheim, Orange County, CA. California Department of Transportation District 12, with assistance from the cities of Anaheim and Orange, proposed to widen and restripe portions of the northbound side of the freeway from Orangewood Avenue to Katella Avenue. Cogstone performed the survey, prepared a combined Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report, an Archaeological Survey Report with geoarchaeological section, and a Historical Property Survey Report. Sub to Michael Baker International. Principal Investigator for Paleontology and Geoarchaeologist. 2018
State Route 138 and Avenue G interchange, Caltrans District 7, unincorporated Los Angeles County, CA. The City of Lancaster, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation District 7, proposed to improve the existing interchange of State Route 138 and Avenue G interchange in addition to widening of Avenue G to the east and west of the existing interchange. Cogstone performed the survey, prepared a combined Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report, an Archaeological Survey Report with geoarchaeological section, and a Historical Resources Compliance Report. Sub to Michael Baker International. Principal Investigator for Paleontology and Geoarchaeologist. 2017 cogstone

PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY- HI STORY
133
Cogstone 114

LOGAN FREEBERG
GIS Supervisor

EDUCATION
2018 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Certificate, California State University, Fullerton 2003 B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Freeberg has over 18 years of experience in cultural resource management and has extensive experience in field surveying, data recovery, monitoring, and excavation of archaeological and paleontological resources associated with land development projects in the private and public sectors. He has conducted all phases of archaeological work, including fieldwork, laboratory analysis, research, and reporting. Mr. Freeberg also has a strong grounding in conventional field and laboratory methods and is skilled in the use of ArcGIS.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE
Purple Line Extension (Westside Subway), Sections 1 and 2, Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO), Los Angeles, CA. The project involves construction of seven stations from the existing Purple Line at Wilshire/Western Avenue along Wilshire Boulevard to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Westwood for

8.6 miles. Manages all paleontological services for Sections 1 and 2 of the subway project including budgets, WEAP training, monitoring, fossil recovery, lab work, analysis, and reporting. Sub to JV West (Stantec/Jacobs JV) (Section 1), AECOM (Section 2). GIS Supervisor. 2020-ongoing San Gabriel River Commuter Bikeway and Big Dalton Wash Commuter Bikeway, City of Baldwin Park, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and historic built environment resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and historical resources for the proposed construction of approximately five miles of new bikeway/pedestrian pathway. Services included pedestrian surveys, records searches, a Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, preparation of DPR 523 forms, NRHP eligibility assessments, and reporting.

Cogstone conducted cultural and paleontological resources monitoring during proposed consolidation and modernization of existing facilities. The project involved redeveloping multiple facilities including hangars and associated structures for Delta Airlines and United Airlines, among others. Upon completion of monitoring, Cogstone prepared Cultural and Paleontological Resources Monitoring Compliance Reports. The City of Los Angeles acted as lead agency for the project. Sub to CDM Smith. GIS Supervisor. 2020-2021 Bell Gardens Water Reservoir Project, City of Bell Gardens, Los Angeles County, CA. Cogstone conducted a cultural and paleontological resources assessment to determine the potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources during improvements which included a new two-million-gallon reservoir, booster pump station, well to be drilled, and other components. Services included record searches, Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission, and an intensive pedestrian survey of the 1.7-acre project area.

Sub to Infrastructure Engineers. GIS Supervisor. 2019-2020 cogstone

PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY- HI STORY
134
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 115
APPENDIX B. MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE PEIR
135
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 116
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Resources Personnel Professional Qualifications Standards. Cultural resources consulting staff shall meet, or be under the direct supervision of an individual meeting, the minimum professional qualifications standards (PQS) set forth by the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) (codified in 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61; 48 FR 44738-44739).

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Historic Resources Assessment. For each near-term, mid-term, and long-term project, LCWA shall retain an SOI-qualified architectural historian (Qualified Architectural Historian) to conduct a historic resources assessment including: a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center; a review of pertinent archives and sources; a pedestrian field survey; recordation of all identified historic resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms; and preparation of a technical report documenting the methods and results of the assessment. The report(s) shall be submitted to LCWA for review and approval prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or publication of subsequent CEQA documents. The Qualified Architectural Historian shall file a copy of the final report(s) with the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its completion. A Historic Resources Assessment shall not be required for any project site that has already undergone the same or similar assessment as part of the program as long as the assessment is deemed adequate by the Qualified Architectural Historian for the purposes of the project currently under consideration.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Historic Resources Evaluation. Prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or the publication of subsequent CEQA documents for any project site containing unevaluated historic resources, a Qualified Architectural Historian shall determine if the project has the potential to result in adverse impacts to identified historic resources. For any historic resource that may be adversely impacted, the Qualified Architectural Historian shall evaluate the resource for listing in the California Register under Criteria 1-4 in order to determine if the resource qualifies as a historical resource. If a historic resource is found eligible, the Qualified Architectural Historian shall determine if the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource. If a substantial adverse change would occur (i.e., the project would demolish the resource or materially alter it in an adverse manner), the Qualified Architectural Historian shall develop appropriate mitigation measures to be incorporated into subsequent CEQA documents. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, relocation, HABS/HAER/HALS documentation, development and implementation of an interpretative and commemorative program, or development and implementation of a salvage plan. All evaluations and resulting technical reports shall be completed and approved by LWCA prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or publication of subsequent CEQA documents. The Qualified Architectural Historian shall file a copy of the final report(s) with the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its acceptance by LCWA 136
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 117
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Resources Assessment. For each near-term, midterm, and long-term project that involves ground disturbance, LCWA shall retain an SOIqualified archaeologist (Qualified Archaeologist) to conduct an archaeological resources assessment including: a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center; a Sacred Lands File search at the Native American Heritage Commission; updated geoarchaeological review incorporating previously unavailable data (such as geotechnical studies); a pedestrian field survey; recordation of all identified archaeological resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms; and preparation of a technical report. The technical report shall:
document the methods and results of the study; provide an assessment of the project’s potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources and human remains based on a review of the project plans, depth of proposed ground disturbance, and available project-specific geotechnical reports; and provide recommendations as to whether additional studies are warranted (i.e., Extended Phase I presence/absence testing or resource boundary delineation, Phase II testing and evaluation). The report(s) shall be submitted to LCWA for review and approval prior to approval of project plans or publication of subsequent CEQA documents. The Qualified Archaeologist shall file a copy of the final report(s) with the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its completion. An Archaeological Resources Assessment shall not be required for any project site that has already undergone the same or similar assessment as part of the program as long as the assessment is deemed adequate by the Qualified Archaeologist for the purposes of the project currently under consideration.

Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Extended Phase I Archaeological Investigation. Prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or the publication of subsequent CEQA documents for any project with a high potential to encounter subsurface archaeological resources as determined by the project-specific archaeological resources assessment conducted under Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Resources Assessment, a Qualified Archaeologist shall conduct an Extended Phase I investigation to identify the presence/absence of subsurface archaeological resources. Prior to the initiation of field work for any Extended Phase I investigation, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a work plan outlining the investigation’s objectives, goals, and methodology (e.g., field and lab procedures, collection protocols, curation and reporting requirements, Native American input/monitoring, schedule, security measures). For investigations related to Native American archaeological resources, monitoring shall be required in accordance with Mitigation Measures CUL-13: Native American Monitoring. All work plans shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed in the event that human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods (i.e., artifacts associated with human remains) are encountered in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries.

Disposition of archaeological materials recovered during Extended Phase I investigations shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-15: Curation and Disposition of Cultural Materials. Disposition of human remains and any associated funerary objects or grave goods shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. Projects 137
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 118
occurring within the same timeframe may be covered by one overarching work plan. All investigations and resulting technical reports shall be completed and approved by LCWA prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or publication of subsequent CEQA documents. The Qualified Archaeologist shall file a copy of the final report(s) with the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its acceptance by LCWA. An Extended Phase I investigation shall not be required for any project site or resource that has already undergone the same or similar investigation as part of the program as long as the investigation is deemed adequate by the Qualified Archaeologist for the purposes of the project currently under consideration.

Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Phase II Archaeological Investigation. Prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or the publication of subsequent CEQA documents for any project site containing known unevaluated archaeological resources as identified by the project-specific archaeological resources assessment conducted under Mitigation Measure CUL-4:

Archaeological Resources Assessment, a Qualified Archaeologist shall determine if the project has the potential to result in adverse impacts to identified archaeological resources (this may include initial Extended Phase I testing to identify the boundaries of resources, if necessary to properly assess potential impacts, following the procedures outlined under Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Extended Phase I Archaeological Investigation). For any archaeological resource that may be adversely impacted, the Qualified Archaeologist shall conduct Phase II testing and shall evaluate the resource for listing in the California Register under Criteria 1-4 in order to determine if the resource qualifies as a historical resource. LCWA shall consider the significance of the resource to Native American groups prior to requiring any Phase II subsurface testing. If the resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it shall then be considered for qualification as a unique archaeological resource. Native American or prehistoric archaeological resources shall also be considered as contributors to the tribal landscape to determine if they contribute to the significance of the landscape. Prior to the initiation of field work for any Phase II investigation, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a work plan outlining the investigation’s objectives, goals, and methodology (e.g., research design, field and lab procedures, collection protocols, data requirements/thresholds, evaluation criteria, curation and reporting requirements, Native American input/monitoring, schedule, security measures). The Qualified Archaeologist and LCWA shall coordinate with participating Native American Tribes during preparation of Phase II work plans related to Native American archaeological resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resources, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered in the evaluation, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape. For investigations related to Native American archaeological resources, Native American Tribal coordination and monitoring shall be required in accordance with Mitigation Measures CUL-12: Native American Coordination and CUL-13: Native American Monitoring. All work plans shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed in the event that human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods (i.e., artifacts associated with human remains) are encountered in 138
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 119
accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. Disposition of archaeological materials recovered during Extended Phase I or Phase II investigations shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-15: Curation and Disposition of Cultural Materials.

Disposition of human remains and any associated funerary objects or grave good shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries. Projects occurring within the same timeframe may be covered by one overarching work plan. All investigations and resulting technical reports shall be completed and approved by LWCA prior to LCWA’s approval of project plans or publication of subsequent CEQA documents. The Qualified Archaeologist shall file a copy of the final report(s) with the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its acceptance by LCWA.

Mitigation Measure CUL-7: Avoidance and Preservation in Place of Archaeological Resources. In the event historical resources or unique archaeological resources or resources that contribute to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape are identified, avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to such resources.

Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is determined by the LCWA to be infeasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations, then that resource shall be subject to Mitigation Measure CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. If avoidance and preservation in place of a resource is determined by LCWA to be feasible, then that resource shall be subject to Mitigation Measure CUL-9: Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Mitigation Measure CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. A Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan for significant archaeological resources (i.e., resources that qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources or that contribute to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape) that will be adversely impacted by a project.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, data recovery shall not be required for a historical resource if LCWA determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information for resources eligible under California Register Criterion 4. The Qualified Archaeologist and LCWA shall consult with interested Native American Tribes for recovery/treatment of Native American archaeological resources during preparation of the plan(s) to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resources, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered in assessing treatment, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape. Projects occurring within the same timeframe may be covered by one overarching plan. The plan(s) shall be submitted to LCWA for review and 139
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 120
approval prior to the start of field work for data recovery efforts for resources that are eligible under California Register Criterion 4 (data potential). Data recovery field work shall be completed prior to the start of any project-related ground disturbance. Treatment for archaeological resources that are eligible under California Register Criterion 1 (events), Criterion 2 (persons), or Criterion 3 (design/workmanship) shall be completed within 3 years of completion of the project. Each plan shall include:
a. Research Design. The plan shall outline the applicable cultural context(s) for the region, identify research goals and questions that are applicable to each resource or class of resources, and list the data needs (types, quantities, quality) required to answer each research question. The research design shall address all four California Register Criteria (1–4) and identify the methods that will be required to inform treatment, such as subsurface investigation, documentary/archival research, and/or oral history, depending on the nature of the resource. The research design shall also include consideration of Native American or prehistoric archaeological resources as contributors to the tribal cultural landscape.
b. Data Recovery for Resources Eligible under Criterion 4. The plan shall outline the field and laboratory methods to be employed, and any specialized studies that will be conducted, as part of the data recovery effort for resources that are eligible under California Register Criterion 4 (data potential). If a resource is eligible under additional criteria, treatment beyond data recovery shall be implemented (see CUL-6c).
c. Treatment for Resources Eligible under Criteria 1, 2, or 3. In the event a resource is eligible under California Register Criterion 1 (events), Criterion 2 (persons), or Criterion 3 (design/workmanship), then resource-specific treatment shall be developed to mitigate projectrelated impacts to the degree feasible. This could include forms of documentation, interpretation, public outreach, ethnographic and language studies, publications, and educational programs, depending on the nature of the resource, and may require the retention of additional technical specialists. Treatment measures shall be generally outlined in the plan based on existing information on the resource. Once data recovery is completed and the results are available to better inform resource-specific treatment, the treatment measures shall be formalized and implemented. Treatment shall be developed by the Qualified Archaeologist in consultation with LCWA and Native American Tribal representatives for resources that are Native American in origin, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape. d. Security Measures. The plan shall include recommended security measures to protect archaeological resources from vandalism, looting, and non-intentionally damaging activities during field work.
140
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 121
e. Procedures for Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects or Grave Goods. The plan shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed in the event that human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods are uncovered. Protocols and procedures shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries.
f. Reporting Requirements. Upon completion of data recovery for resources eligible under Criterion 4, the Qualified Archaeologist shall document the findings in an Archaeological Data Recovery Report. The draft Archaeological Data Recovery Report shall be submitted to the LCWA within 360 days after completion of data recovery, and the final Archaeological Data Recovery Report shall be submitted to LCWA within 60 days after the receipt of LCWA comments. The Qualified Archaeologist shall submit the final Archaeological Data Recovery Report to the South Central Coastal Information Center within 30 days of its acceptance by LCWA. Upon completion of all other treatment for resources eligible under Criteria 1, 2, or 3, the Qualified Archaeologist shall document the resource-specific treatment that was implemented for each resource and verification that treatment has been completed in a technical document (report or memorandum). The document shall be provided to LCWA within 30 days after completion of treatment.
g. Curation or Disposition of Cultural Materials. The plan shall outline the requirements for final disposition of all cultural materials collected during data recovery. Disposition of all archaeological materials shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-15: Curation and Disposition of Cultural Materials. Disposition of human remains and any associated funerary objects or grave goods shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries.
h. Protocols for Native American Coordination and Monitoring. The plan shall outline the role and responsibilities of Native American Tribal representatives in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-12: Native American Coordination. It shall outline communication protocols, timelines for review of archaeological resources documents, and provisions for Native American monitoring. The plan shall include provisions for full-time Native American monitoring of all data recovery field work for resources that are Native American in origin, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape, in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-13: Native American Monitoring.

Mitigation Measure CUL-9: Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan.

For each near-term, mid-term, and long-term project that involves ground disturbance, a Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan taking into account the final LCWA-approved project design plans, depths/locations of ground disturbance, proximity to known archaeological resources, and potential to encounter 141
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 122
subsurface archaeological resources. Projects occurring within the same timeframe may be covered by one overarching plan. The Qualified Archaeologist and LCWA shall coordinate with participating Native American Tribes during preparation of the plan(s). Each plan shall include:
a. Establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The plan shall outline areas that will be designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas (including maps), if needed. Significant or unevaluated archaeological resources that are being avoided and are within 50 feet of the construction zone shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The resources shall be delineated with exclusion markers to ensure avoidance. These areas shall not be marked as archaeological resources, but shall be designated as “exclusion zones” on project plans and protective fencing in order to discourage unauthorized disturbance or collection of artifacts that are scientifically important, are considered, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape.
b. Provisions for Archaeological Monitoring. The plan shall outline requirements for archaeological monitoring and the archaeological monitor(s) role and responsibilities in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-11: Archaeological Resources Monitoring. Ground disturbance in locations/depths that have been previously monitored as part of the program shall not be subject to additional monitoring.
c. Procedures for Discovery of Archaeological Resources. Procedures to be implemented in the event of an archaeological discovery shall be fully defined in the plan and shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL- 14: Archaeological Resources Discoveries. Procedures outlined shall include stop-work and protective measures, notification protocols, procedures for significance assessments, and appropriate treatment measures. The plan shall state avoidance or preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to historical resources, unique archaeological resources, and contributors to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape, but shall provide procedures to follow should avoidance be infeasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If, based on the recommendation of a Qualified Archaeologist, it is determined that a discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or unique archaeological resource or is a contributor to the significance of the tribal cultural landscape, then avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to such a resource in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-7: Avoidance and Preservation in Place of Archaeological Resources. In the event that preservation in place is determined to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented following the procedures outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. LCWA shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment of resources that are Native American in origin to ensure cultural values ascribed to the 142
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 123
resources, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape
d. Procedures for Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects or Grave Goods. The plan shall outline the protocols and procedures to be followed in the event that human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods are uncovered. Protocols and procedures shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries.
e. Reporting Requirements. The plan shall outline provisions for weekly and final reporting. The Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare weekly status reports detailing activities and locations observed (including maps) and summarizing any discoveries for the duration of monitoring to be submitted to LCWA via email for each week in which monitoring activities occur. The Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a draft Archaeological Resources Monitoring Report and submit it to LCWA within 180 days after completion of the monitoring program or treatment for significant discoveries should treatment extend beyond the cessation of monitoring. The final Archaeological Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted to LCWA within 60 days after receipt of LCWA comments. The Qualified Archaeologist shall also submit the final Archaeological Resources Monitoring Report to the South Central Coastal Information Center. f. Curation or Disposition of Cultural Materials. The plan shall outline the requirements for final disposition of all cultural materials collected during data recovery. Disposition of all archaeological materials shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-15: Curation and Disposition of Cultural Materials. Disposition of human remains and any associated funerary objects or grave goods shall be in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries.
g. Protocols for Native American Coordination and Monitoring. The plan shall outline requirements for Native American coordination and monitoring, and the Native American monitor(s) role and responsibilities in accordance with Mitigation Measures CUL-12: Native American Coordination and CUL-13: Native American Monitoring.

Mitigation Measure CUL-10: Construction Worker Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. For each near term, mid-term, and long-term project that involves ground disturbance, LCWA shall retain a Qualified Archaeologist to implement a cultural resources sensitivity training program. The Qualified Archaeologist, or their designee, and a Native American representative shall instruct all construction personnel of the importance and significance of the area as a tribal cultural landscape, the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered, the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains, confidentiality of discoveries, and safety precautions to be taken 143
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 124
when working with cultural resources monitors. In the event that construction crews are phased, additional trainings shall be conducted for new construction personnel. LCWA or their contractors shall ensure construction personnel are made available for and attend the training.

LCWA shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance Mitigation Measure CUL-11: Archaeological Resources Monitoring. For each near-term, mid-term, and long-term project, full-time archaeological monitoring of ground disturbance (i.e., demolition, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, boring, drilling, grubbing, vegetation removal, brush clearance, weed abatement, grading, excavation, trenching, or any other activity that has potential to disturb soil) shall be conducted in areas and at depths where there is a potential to encounter archaeological materials or human remains, including excavations into existing artificial fill and native soils, based on the project-specific archaeological resources assessment prepared under Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Resources Assessment.

Ground disturbance in locations/depths that have been previously monitored as part of the program shall not be subject to additional monitoring. The archaeological monitor(s) shall be familiar with the types of resources that could be encountered and shall work under the direct supervision of a Qualified Archaeologist. The number of archaeological monitors required to be on site during ground-disturbing activities is dependent on the construction scenario, specifically the number of pieces of equipment operating at the same time, the distance between these pieces of equipment, and the pace at which equipment is working, with the goal of monitors being able to effectively observe soils as they are exposed. Generally, work areas more than 500 feet from one another will require additional monitors. The archaeological monitor(s) shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Archaeological monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt and re-direct ground disturbing activities in the event of a discovery until it has been assessed for significance and treatment implemented, if necessary, based on the recommendations of the Qualified Archaeologist in coordination with LCWA, and the Native American representatives in the event the resource is Native American in origin, and in accordance with the protocols and procedures outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. Reporting of archaeological monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-9: Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan Mitigation Measure CUL-12: Native American Coordination. LCWA shall seek input from participating Native American Tribes during the preparation of documents required under Mitigation Measures CUL-5: Extended Phase I Archaeological Investigation, CUL-6: Phase II Archaeological Investigation, CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan, Mitigation Measure CUL 9: Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, and CUL-14: Archaeological Resources Discoveries, including but not limited to work plans, research designs, treatment plans, and associated technical reports. LCWA shall provide participating Native American Tribes with electronic copies of draft documents and 144
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 125
afford them 30 days from receipt of a document to review and comment on the document. Native American comments will be provided in writing for consideration by LCWA. LCWA shall document comments and how the comments were/were not addressed in a tracking log Mitigation Measure CUL-13: Native American Monitoring. For each near-term, mid-term, and long-term project, full-time Native American monitoring of ground disturbance (i.e., demolition, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, boring, drilling, grubbing, vegetation removal, brush clearance, weed abatement, grading, excavation, trenching, or any other activity that has potential to disturb soil) shall be conducted in areas and at depths where there is a potential to encounter archaeological materials or human remains, including excavations into existing artificial fill and native soils, based on the project-specific study prepared under Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Resources Assessment. LCWA shall retain a Native American monitor(s) from a California Native American Tribe that is culturally and geographically affiliated with the program area (according to the California Native American Heritage Commission) to conduct the monitoring. If more than one Tribe is interested in monitoring, LCWA shall contract with each Tribe that expresses interest and prepare a monitoring rotation schedule. LCWA shall rotate monitors on an equal and regular basis to ensure that each Tribal group has the same opportunity to participate in the monitoring program.

If a Tribe cannot participate when their rotation comes up, they shall forfeit that rotation unless LCWA can make other arrangements to accommodate their schedule. The number of Native American monitors required to be on site during ground disturbing activities is dependent on the construction scenario, specifically the number of pieces of equipment operating at the same time, the distance between these pieces of equipment, and the pace at which equipment is working, with the goal of monitors being able to effectively observe soils as they are exposed. Generally, work areas more than 500 feet from one another require additional monitors. Native American monitors shall have the authority to halt and re-direct ground disturbing activities in the event of a discovery until it has been assessed for significance. The Native American monitor(s) shall also monitor all ground disturbance related to subsurface investigations and data recovery efforts conducted under Mitigation Measures CUL-5: Extended Phase I Archaeological Investigation, CUL-6: Phase II Archaeological Investigation, and CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan for any resources that are Native American in origin, according to the rotation schedule, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape.

Mitigation Measure CUL-14: Archaeological Resources Discoveries. In the event archaeological resources are encountered during construction of the proposed program, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall cease (within 100 feet), and the protocols and procedures for discoveries outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-9: Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan shall be implemented. The discovery shall be evaluated for potential significance by the Qualified Archaeologist. If the Qualified Archaeologist determines that the resource may be significant (i.e., meets the definition for historical resource in CEQA Guidelines 145
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 126
subdivision 15064.5(a) or for unique archaeological resource in PRC subdivision 21083.2(g) or is a contributor to the tribal cultural landscape), the Qualified Archaeologist shall develop an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan for the resource following the procedures outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-8: Phase III Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan. When assessing significance and developing treatment for resources that are Native American in origin, including those related to the tribal cultural landscape, the Qualified Archaeologist and LCWA shall consult with the appropriate Native American representatives. The Qualified Archaeologist shall also determine if work may proceed in other parts of the project site while data recovery and treatment is being carried out. LCWA shall consult with the State Lands Commission Staff Attorney regarding any cultural resources discoveries on state lands.

Mitigation Measure CUL 15: Curation and Disposition of Cultural Materials. LCWA shall curate all Native American archaeological materials, with the exception of funerary objects or grave goods (i.e., artifacts associated with Native American human remains). LCWA shall consult with Native American representatives regarding the final disposition of Native American archaeological materials and on the selection of the curation facility, with preference given to tribal museums. LCWA shall first consider repositories that are accredited by the American Association of Museums and that meet the standards outlined in 36 CFR 79.9. If a suitable accredited repository is not identified, then LCWA shall consider non-accredited repositories as long as they meet the minimum standards set forth by 36 CFR 79.9. If a suitable non-accredited repository is not identified, then LCWA shall donate the collection to a local California Native American Tribe(s) (Gabrielino or Juañeno) for educational purposes. Disposition of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects or grave goods shall be determined by the landowner in consultation with LCWA and the Most Likely Descendant in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL 18: Human Remains Discoveries. LCWA shall curate all historicperiod archaeological materials that are not Native American in origin at a repository accredited by the American Association of Museums that meets the standards outlined in 36 CFR 79.9. If no accredited repository accepts the collection, then LCWA may curate it at a non-accredited repository as long as it meets the minimum standards set forth by 36 CFR 79.9. If neither an accredited nor a non-accredited repository accepts the collection, then LCWA shall offer the collection to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, or to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. If no institution, school, or historical society accepts the collection, LCWA may retain it for on-site display as part of its interpretation and educational elements. The final disposition of cultural resources recovered on state lands under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission must be approved by the Commission. Prior to start of each project, LCWA shall obtain a curation agreement and shall be responsible for payment of fees associated with curation for the duration of the program. 146
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 127
Mitigation Measure CUL16: Future Native American Input. LCWA shall consult with participating California Native American Tribes, to the extent that they wish to participate, during future design of project-level components, plant and native plant selections or palettes, and development of content for educational and interpretative elements, such as signage and Visitors Center displays.

Mitigation Measure CUL17: Tribal Access Plan. Prior to the start of construction, LCWA shall develop a written access plan to preserve and enhance tribal members’ access to, and use of, the restoration Project area for religious, spiritual, or other cultural purposes. This plan will allow access to the extent LCWA has the authority to facilitate such access, and be consistent with existing laws, regulations, and agreements governing property within the program area. The access plan may place restrictions on access into certain areas, such as oil operations and other exclusive easements the LCWA does not have access rights to. This access plan shall be developed in coordination with participating California Native American Tribes, to the extent that they wish to participate.

Mitigation Measure CUL-18: Human Remains Discoveries: If human remains are encountered, then LCWA or its contractor shall halt work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the discovery and contact the appropriate County Coroner in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the County Coroner determines the remains are Native American, then the Coroner will notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours in accordance with Health and Safety Code subdivision 7050.5(c), and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The California Native American Heritage Commission shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD may, with the permission of the land owner, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access by the landowner to inspect the discovery. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. LCWA and the landowner shall discuss and confer with the MLD on all reasonable options regarding the MLD’s preferences for treatment. Until LCWA and the landowner have conferred with the MLD, the contractor shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity and is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. If the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or 147
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 128
the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the facility property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. 148
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 129
APPENDIX C. MAPS AND FIGURES
149
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 130
Figure C - 1. Topographic provinces (after Lightfoot and Parrish 2009) Project Location
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
II II Project Area
t::] Topographic Region
0 50

I I I I
100 Miles
I I N
0 50 100 Kilometers

I I II I I II I
1 :6,000,000 l in = 500,000 ft
150
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 131
Figure C - 2. Geomorphic provinces (after Lightfoot and Parrish 2009) Project Location
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
II II Proj ect Area
II IJ Geomorphic Province
0 50

I I I I
100 Miles
I I N
0 50 100 Kilometers

I I II I I II I
1 :6,000,000 l in = 500,000 ft
151
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 132
Figure C - 3. Geology of the Southern LCW Project area
co~tone
PALEONTOLOGY • ARCHAEOLOGY ~ HISTORY
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach I I I I Project Area
Orange County, CA
Geology from Saucedo et al., 2016
--Fault
■ ■ ■ Inferred Fault
D af - artificial fill (modern)
D Qpe - paralic estuarine deposits
(late Holocene)
D Qype - young paralic estuarine
deposits (late Pleistocene to
Holocene)
LJQom - old shallow marine
deposits (middle to late
Pleistocene)
0 500 1,000 Feet
L.I .....L......L......&........&...I __.___.__, _! AN
0 100 200 Meters

I I I I I I I
1:10,000 1 in= 833 ft
152
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 133
Figure C - 4. Southern California Timeline
Los Angeles Basin & Southern
Timescale Regionnl Synthesi.., Northern ()range 01annel 1;ha.s:hm1trk f'\try 200ytaN co6-.IOO BC Counties Islands AJ)prox
Radio Year• Ceologicnl \Van"tu \Vallnce C. King Suuou
Carbon A.O.B.C. Time Scale (1968) (1955) (1990) (2009)
Years BP
190 - 1-- 1782 _ ChumMh l fo1ori c u"'•um:t._i, .....••. -g L2 ·c Angeles VI Island IV - ,I: 40-0 - ...... 150-0 L:1te ., - Prebi~to1ic LI j Angtlts V Island Ill - Chumash lfofr1.on 1020 - ,-1000 - ......... MS >,
<l! Angtles IV
i! Island II - M4 .;
! -g 0 Angeles Ill - . . .. 1610 - ...... 5-00 .. M3 ·t - :,: . e Q.

A.O. - J .!t Island I M2 :g 2000 -
- o- i Angtles II B.C. - Inter• - Ml 2425 - ...... 500 mediate - lforl'"1.on
- EZ
Cnmbell 2825 - ~,ooo - To1>a.uea Ang.,-1.-~ Tradition - Ill I 3225 - >- 15-00 -
-
- 3625 - - 2000 -
-
- EY 400-0 - - 250-0 -g - " 5 ·.:

To1>anga II .., - :; ~ !!
4370 - - 3000 - 0 >, ,: ,: :,: '" t!! ... - .!t ;;
~ >,
- 1l g >- 35-00 ~ 'ii ·.= - :.; ·c - ,!i £ 5000 - - 4000 - Milling- "l! Encinitas E - n·aclilion dOrH' l lo,·iz.on a - 0
- 450-0 z -
- EX
6000 - - 5-000 -
- Topanga I - 5500
-
- Snn Snn " 7100 - - 6000 - ., DieguilO DieguilO
- I Ttaclition l lo,·iz.on
- ~ ;:,
- .0
J
.: 1; San l>ieguito '/
~ .., Plci Paleoc:oas 1nl s1oc:e.ue :5
Coas1nl Ornnge Los Angtles Ballona
County County Lagoon
Mason and Kowta Altschul ct al. Pe1crson (1969) (20-05) (2014) .. ~ .a.l~•~~l.ii_i!> •• llistorit:*
Lnlt Period 2
Malaga C Late Period
.g Cove I ~
E~
Lnle Period I '---- ~E
t-V
?.
>-
Malaga
Cove 2 '--
C Middle Period
lntern,ediate 0
Period "' ~
e ~
!::~
~
e E
. °;. V • • .£
• ?.
?-
Malaga · ••
Co,·e 2 ·. (To1>•ngn 11)·.

Millingsloue
Period 3
Enrty Period
Millingstoue
Pt1iod 2
Malaga
Covt I
Millingslonc
Period I
Paleoc:oas1nl
Santa Ssu11n
Barbara Barbarn
Channel Cons,
Arnold and Rogers Craesh (1929) (20-04)
Jli,5tol'ic C hu,uai;h
·········· Late Period
T ,·ansi1ionnl
Middle Period
Cnnaliilo
Peo1lle
··········
llun1ing
Peo1)le
Early Period
Oak Crove
Peo1de
"'Hisrorieal Period:

AD 1800-1850 &
Prornhisroric:- Period:

ADJ769-J800
$aura Mouicn Mountain~ Mojnvt l>tsut
Kowta Kowta
(1969) (1969)
Chu1uash/Cabl"it:li110
·······················
Shoshonean
Cnnaliilo
Amnrgosn
Topnnga Ill
Piuro Basin
Topangn II
To1>a.uga I Jlialus
San Oiegui ro
153
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 134
Figure C - 5. Gabrielino (Tongva) Territory (after McCawley 1996) Chumash
..........
' .....

Tataviam
- ,.,. ,.,.-
--- ,,. -4. ✓--
cogstone
1"4U;0NTOI.IIG1' - Al{Clt4ECll.0~T - Hl'ST0~1'
J
\
Project Area
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
Tongva
(Gabrielino)
II II ProjectArea
...
,-_ ~ Tribal Boundary
'-' \,
Serrano
..... .....
-' ' ,.,. _,.':,_ ,.,. ,.,. /
/
/
(
I Cahuilla
I
1- ......
' ,,,., /
\
' \
J
I
...... ,
'
' '\
Juaneno
.._
' I
' r
\.
\
\
I
I
I
\
\
...

Luiseno
lpai
0 10 20 Miles

I II I I I I N
0 IO 20 Kilometers !
1,111,111 A_
1:1,250,000 1 in = 20miles
154
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 135
Figure C - 6. Resources used by Native American tribes by ecological zones (based on Heizer and Elsasser 1980: Figure 32)
(/)
0:::
w
0:::
w
I

COASTAL TIDELAND COLLECTORS, SEA HUNTERS AND FISHERS
~ (/)
0::
w
1-
z
:::)
I
Marsh Plants
/ '\
z Lake Fish Waterfowl
w
~
0:::
w
I
(/)
u:
w
0:::
0 I
(/)
w
~
<(
...J
Acorns
Seeds
Deer
Elk
Rabbits
Phytoplankton
Shellfish t
Surf Fish Sardines
Elk Tuna
Deer Surf Fish
Acorns
t
Seal
• Sea Lion
Wiyot, Coast Yurek,
Miwok & Pomo,
ostanoan, Luisen
Modoc, S.

Valley Yokuts,
Lake Pomo
Patwin, Valley
Yokuts, Plains
Miwok, Gab.

Yurok, Puma~ ,
Wintu, Tolowa,
Wailaki
ahuilla, Serrano,
aviotso, Yuma,
have (/)
0:::
w
0:::
w
I
Antelope
Deer
Elk
i
lt/l>(Tongva)
Monache,
Gab.
~ (Tongva) ('.)
(/)
z
~ ...J
a..
0 z
<(
>-
w
...J
_J
~
Grasses
Salmon
Acorns
Grass Seeds
Fish
Acorns
Pinenuts
•
Deer
Antelope

FOOTHILL HUNTERS GATHERERS
Salmon
Eels
Steel Head
Shellfish
Acorns
Berries
Pinon Nuts
Mesquite
Rabbits
Mountain Sheep
Maize
Beans
Squash
Fish
:::0
< m
~
z
m
,,
en
I
m
:::0
~
m
z
0 m
(/)
m
:::0
-I
I
C
z
-I
m
:::0
(/)
(')
0 r
r
m
(')
-I
0 :::0
_(I)
G) ►
:::0
0 C
r
-I
C
:::0
en
-I
(/)
155
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 136
Figure C - 7. Pacific Rio Grande Trails Landscape (Gates et al. 2013: Figure 4) '-...,.

N
A
··~ s•-... , Sant
• l~ que
Northern,• • .... ,, .. Rio Gran
River I
N l\l EX I
Legend
••••
••••••••
Landscape Boundary
Trails 0 25 50
--
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION· SITING,TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION SOURCE ESRI. Delorme. Tele Atlas, CEC
100
Miles
150 200
j
156
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone
137
Figure C - 8. Juaneño territory map (data courtesy of Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation)
cogstone
,ALCONTCL0111'·AIICIIAf0LOCIT·HISTOU
.- ..... ..._..,
[Project Area l
/
(
~
,-;,
' '
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA 1-_ ~ Juaneno Territory
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
II II ProjectArea
.....
' ' .... \,
'
\ ..._
' ' \
/
..._ I
' I ' \
,1
0 10 20 Miles

I I II I II I I
O IO 20 Ki lometers
l..w.1l.u.l
N
A
1 :2,000,000 1 in = 32 miles
157
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone
138
Figure C - 9. Land grant map
1c rne SAN1ANTONIO
~AUSAL ~ (LUGO)
REDONDO------ Compton
I
rrance

SANPEDRO
(DOM INGUEZ)
Carson

LOS PALOS
VERDES
cogstone
1'4U;0NTOUIG1' · Al{C IV,eca.o~, - Hl'SHl~Y
SANTA GERTRUDES N::>!I;
(MC·I-ARLAND
& DOWN EY)

LOS ALAM ITOS
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach II IJ ProjectArea Los Angeles County, CA City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
D Land Grant

LA HABRA

SAN JUAN
F11ller,CAJON DE

SANTAANA
Anaheim
y
Oran
I.AS ROI.SAS
0 2.5 5 Miles

I I I I I I I I N
0 2.5 5 Kilometers !
1,1111111 A_
1 :300,000 1 in = 25,000 ft
158
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone
139
Figure C - 10. Location of villages within the Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City or Sea l l:3each
Orange County, CA
• 0
Puvungna
Motuucheyngna
II II Los Cerritos Wetlands Compl ex
0 1,000 2,000 feet

I II I I II I I N
0 250 500 Meters

I II I I II I I A
l :30,000 l in = 2,500 ft
159
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 140
Figure C - 11. Extent of Puvungna Traditional Cultural Landscape Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Bcacb
Orange County, CA
0 Village Site
II IJ Southern Proj ect Area
□ Los Cerritos We tlands Complex
c:J 5-Mile Rad ius
0 2.5 5 Miles
.____.__ ....... _....___.,_.....__..._ __ -I N
A 0 2.5 5 Kilometers
I ... _.__.__.__._I ....................... ~I
1 :160,000 1 in = 13,333 ft
160
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone
141
APPENDIX D. USDA HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
161
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 142
Figure D - 1. 1927 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
I I I I Project Area
0 500 1,000 Feet
.___._ _ _.___.._.....____,.___.__..__~I N
0 I 00 200 Meters ! .__ .... , _._, _._, _1.__,.__.__1 ........ 1 " 1:6,500 I in = 542 ft
162
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 143
Figure D - 2. 1928 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
I I I I Project Area
0 500 1,000 Feet
.___._ _ _.___.._.....____,.___.__..__~I N
0 I 00 200 Meters ! .__ .... , _._, _._, _1.__,.__.__1 ........ 1 " 1:6,500 I in = 542 ft
163
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 144
Figure D - 3. 1938 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
I I I I Project Area
0 500 1,000 Feet
.___._ _ _.___.._.....____,.___.__..__~I N
0 I 00 200 Meters ! .__ .... , _._, _._, _1.__,.__.__1 ........ 1 " 1:6,500 I in = 542 ft
164
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 145
Figure D - 4. 1952 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
I I I I Project Area
0 500 1,000 Feet
.___.__..___.__..___.__..___._~I N
0 I 00 200 Meters ! .__ .... , ........ , _._, _1.__,.__.__,.__1 A. 1:6,500 I in = 542 ft
165
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 146
Figure D - 5. 1962 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
I I I I Project Area
0 500 1,000 Feet
._____._ _ __.__.___._ _ _,___,.___.___,I N
0 I 00 200 Meters !
.__..___.__,___.1___.,.__.__ .... , ..... 1 A.
1:6,500 I in = 542 ft
166
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 147
Figure D - 6. 1965 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City or Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
Ii IIProject /\rea
0 500 1,000 Feet
~--'-----~--~---1 N
0 100 200 Meters i
LI _._1 __._1 __.___._I ___.1___.___.1 .......... 1 Jl'4. 1 :6,500 1 in = 542 rt
167
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 148
Figure D - 7. 1974 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City or Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
Ii IIProject /\rea
0 500 1,000 Feet
~--~-~--~-~--~! N
0 100 200 Meters i
LI _.___._ _ ___.,___.1__.__. .......... 1 Jl'4.
1 :6,500 1 in = 542 rt
168
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 149
Figure D - 8. 1994 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City or Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
Ii IIProject /\rea
0 500 1,000 Feet
~--'-----~--~---1 N
0 100 200 Meters i
LI _._1 __._1 __.___._I ___.1___.___.1 .......... 1 Jl'4. 1 :6,500 1 in = 542 rt
169
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 150
Figure D - 9. 2001 USDA Historic Aerial Photograph (Courtesy of UCSB: FrameFinder) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City or Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
Ii IIProject /\rea
0 500 1,000 Feet
~~-~-~-~~~~-~~! N
0 100 200 Meters i LI ................................ 1 _.__.__.__,I Jl'4. 1 :6,500 1 in = 542 rt
170
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 151
APPENDIX E. PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES
171
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 152
Table E – 1. Previous Studies within a One-mile radius of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
LA-00012 Crabtree,
Robert H.

Environmental Data Base for The [sic]
in the City of Long Beach, California
1973 0 - 1 Mile
LA-00057 Leonard,
Nelson N.

III
A Reconnaissance and Evaluation of
the Archaeological Resources of the
Veterans Administration Hospital
Long Beach, California
1974 0 - 1 Mile
LA-00491 Dixon, Keith
A.

Inventory of Archaeological
Resources, CSULB Campus
1977 0 - 1 Mile
LA-00503 Dixon, Keith
A.

Archaeological Resources and Policy
Recommendations of Long Beach
1974 0 - 1 Mile
LA-00522 Cooley,
Theodore G.

Test Level Investigations Conducted
on Sites CA-LAN-274 and 275.
1979 0 - 1 Mile
LA-00939 Allen,
Lawrence P.

The Sims Pond Site, CA-LAN-702,
Alamitos Bay, Los Angeles County,
California
1980 0 - 1 Mile
LA-01488 Mason,
Roger D.
and Wayne
H. Bonner
Archaeological and Paleontological
Report on the Channel Point Property
1985 0 - 1 Mile
LA-02114 McKenna,
Jeanette A.

Archaeological Investigations of the
Proposed California Shores Property,
Long Beach, California
1990 Within Project
area
LA-02399 Winman,
Lois J. and
E. Gary
Stickel
Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor
Areas Cultural Resource Survey
1978 0 - 1 Mile
LA-02794 Dixon, Keith
A.

Reviving an Archaeological Project at
Rancho Los Alamitos
1972 0 - 1 Mile
LA-02795 Desautels,
Roger J., K.

Dixon, and
M. Rosen
Correspondence Between R.

Desautels, K. Dixon, and M. Rosen
1979 0 - 1 Mile
LA-02864 Dixon, Keith
A.

Comment on Second Incomplete Draft
of Implementation Guidelines for the
Preservation of Archaeological
Resources in Campus Development
Project, California State University,
Long Beach; Work in Progress as of
July 1993
1993 0 - 1 Mile
172
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 153
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
LA-03583 Bucknam,
Bonnie M.

The Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity:

A Gazetteer and Compilation of
Archaeological Site Information
1974 0 - 1 Mile
LA-03853 Anonymous Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and
Cultural Resources Assessment of the
Point View Project Study Area, City
of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles
County, California
1996 0 - 1 Mile
LA-04091 Milliken,
Randell and
William R.

Hildebrandt
Assessment of Archaeological
Resources at the Rancho Los Alamitos
Historic Ranch and Gardens
1997 0 - 1 Mile
LA-04157 McLean,
Deborah K.,
Ivan
Strudwick,
and William
McCawley
Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Marketplace Restaurant and Retail
Site, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles
County, Ca.
1997 Within Project
area
LA-04266 Brooks,
Sheilagh T.

A Deeply-buried Human Skull and
Recent Stratigraphy at the Present
Mouth of the San Gabriel River, Seal
Beach, California
1960 0 - 1 Mile
LA-04269 Zahniser,
Jack L.

Archaeological Salvage Excavations
at 4-LAN-306 (known As Puvungna)
Summer, 1973
1974 0 - 1 Mile
LA-04270 Underwood,
Jackson
Archaeological Testing for the
Information Booth Project, California
State University, Long Beach
1993 0 - 1 Mile
LA-04274 Underwood,
Jackson
Archaeological Survey and Testing for
the Pipeline Project California State
University, Long Beach
1993 0 - 1 Mile
LA-04275 Underwood,
Jackson
Archaeological Testing at the Central
Plant Site, California State University,
Long Beach
1993 0 - 1 Mile
LA-04276 Underwood,
Jackson
Archaeological Testing of Phase I, the
Pedestrian Walkway, Parking
Structure B California State
University, Long Beach
1993 0 - 1 Mile
LA-04277 Underwood,
Jackson
Archaeological Testing at the Ticket
Booth Site, California State
University, Long Beach
1993 0 - 1 Mile
LA-04355 Widell,
Cherilyn E.

A Cultural Resources Management
Plan for the California State
University, Long Beach
1994 0 - 1 Mile
173
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 154
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
LA-05215 McKenna,
Jeanette A.

A Cultural Resources Investigation of
the Proposed Long Beach Ocean
Desalination Project, Long Beach, Los
Angeles County, California
2001 0 - 1 Mile
LA-05727 Cottrell,
Marie G.

A Report of Test Excavations: CALAN-7021975 0 - 1 Mile LA-05890 Strudwick,
Ivan H., W.

McCawley,
D.K.B.

McLean,
and B.L.

Strum
Cultural Resource Survey of the
Bixby Ranch Parcel Near Alamitos
Bay, Los Angeles County, California
1996 Within Project
area
LA-06089 McCormick,
Steven and
Ferraro,
David D.

Literature Review, Field
Reconnaissance, and Grading
Monitoring of an Abandoned Oil Field
in Long Beach, California
2002 0 - 1 Mile
LA-06107 Shepard,
Richard S.

Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment: Los Alamitos Pump
Station Project in Long Beach, Los
Angeles County, and Seal Beach,
Orange County, California
2003 Within Project
area
LA-06160 Baksh,
Michael,
Christopher
J. Doolittle,
David D.

Earle, Donn
R. Grenda,
and William
McCawley
Puvungna: A Review of the
Ethnohistoric, Archaeological, and
Ethnographic Issues Surrounding a
Gabrielino Rancheria Near Alamitos
Bay, Los Angeles County, California
Draft
1994 0 - 1 Mile
LA-06163 Cottrell,
Marie G.

Archaeological Test Excavations at
CA-LAN-702
1975 0 - 1 Mile
LA-08487 Strudwick,
Ivan H.

Cultural Resource Survey of the
Alamitos Electrical Generating Station
Fuel Oil Tank Farm, City of Long
Beach, Los Angeles County,
California
2004 0 - 1 Mile
LA-08489 Duke, Curt
and Judith
Marvin
Cultural Resource Assessment:

Cingular Wireless Facility No. Sm
118-03, Long Beach, Los Angeles
County, California
2003 0 - 1 Mile
174
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 155
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
LA-08494 Shepard,
Richard S.

Archaeological Survey Report: Minor
Widening of Pacific Coast Highway
(PCH, State Route 1) at 2nd Street in
the City of Long Beach, Southern Los
Angeles County, California
2004 0 - 1 Mile
LA-08497 Raab, Mark
L. and
Matthew
Boxt
A Research Design and
Implementation Guidelines for the
Preservation of Archaeological
Resources in Campus Development
Projects, California State University,
Long Beach: Work in Progress As of
27 October, 1993
1993 0 - 1 Mile
LA-08498 Raab, Mark
L. and
Matthew
Boxt
A Cultural Resources Management
Plan for the California State
University, Long Beach, Work in
Progress As of 3-19-1994
1994 0 - 1 Mile
LA-09839 Taniguchi,
Christeen
Historic Architectural Survey Report:

Long Beach VA Hospital Seismic
Corrections Project, Long Beach, Los
Angeles County, CA
2006 0 - 1 Mile
LA-09840 Wills, Carrie Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment, Long Beach VA Hospital
Seismic Corrections Project, Long
Beach, Los Angeles County,
California
2006 0 - 1 Mile
LA-10483 Fulton, Terri Cultural Resources Assessment for the Alamitos Bay Marina Rehabilitation
Project, City of Long Beach, Los
Angeles County, California
2009 0 - 1 Mile
LA-10527 Weinman,
Lois J.

Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor
Areas Regional Cultural History, Los
Angeles County, California
1978 0 - 1 Mile
LA-11137 Trinh,
Phoung
LOP Facsimile Transmittal SPL-2009-
00807-PHT
2009 0 - 1 Mile
LA-12224 Mason,
Roger, Cary
Cotterman,
and Josh
Smallwood
Phase I Archaeological Survey and
Phase II Historic Building Evaluations
for the Seismic Corrections, Mental
Health and Community Living Center
Project Depart of Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, Long Beach, Los
Angeles County, California
2011 0 - 1 Mile
175
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 156
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
LA-12808 Chasteen,
Carrie,
Tiffany
Clark,
Richard
Hanes, and
Michael
Mirro
Cultural Resources Study of the
Wilmington Oil and Gas Field, Los
Angeles County, California in Support
of Analysis of Oil and Gas Well
Stimulation Treatments in California
Environmental Impact Report
2014 0 - 1 Mile
LA-12960 McKenna,
Jeanette A.

Cultural Resources Overview: The
City of Long Beach Southeast Area
Specific Plan, Los Angeles County,
California
2016 Within Project
area
OR-00481 Van Horn,
David M.

Archaeological Survey Report: the 9
Acre LA Dept. of Water and Power
Property Located at the Corner of 1st
and Ocean Ave. in the City of Seal
Beach
1979 0 - 1 Mile
OR-00493 Anonymous Archaeological Survey Report: the
Hellman Property in Seal Beach
1980 Within Project
area
OR-00619 Frierman,
Jay D.

Field Assessment of CA-ORA-322;
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach
1981 0 - 1 Mile
OR-00639 Anonymous Archaeological Test Report on the
Hellman Property Located in Seal
Beach
1981 Within Project
area
OR-00790 Brock,
James P.

Cultural Resource Assessment of Two
Study Areas in the Seal Beach
National Wildlife Refuge
1985 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01049 Redwine,
Peter
Landing Hill 1958 Within Project
area
OR-01272 Stickel,
Gary E.

A Baseline Archaeological Study for
the City of Seal Beach California
1991 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01290 De Barros,
Philip and
Roger D.

Mason
Cultural Resources Survey Report for
the Unocal Property at 99 Marina
Drive Seal Beach, California
1993 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01301 Kelsey,
Harry and
Nicholas
Magalousis
Historical Review and Archaeological
Report for the Unocal On-shore
Facility at 99 Marina Drive in Seal
Beach California in Two Parts
1993 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01348 De Barros,
Philip and
Roger D.

Mason
Addendum to Cultural Resources
Survey Report for the Unocal Property
at 99 Marina Drive Seal Beach,
California
1993 0 - 1 Mile
176
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 157
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-01414 Van Horn,
David M.

The 20+ Acre Site of Proposed New
Residential Housing on the Naval
Weapons Station, Seal Beach
1981 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01421 Smith, Brian
F. and Larry
J. Pierson
Remediation Project at Buildings 10,
69, and 923 at the Naval Weapons
Station, Seal Beach.
1995 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01482 Mason,
Roger and
Larry
Carbone
Archaeological Resources Protection
Plan for Installation Restoration Sites
4,8,9, Swmu 56 at Naval Weapons
Station, Seal Beach, Orange County,
California
1996 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01568 Clevenger,
Joyce M.

Extended Phase I Exploratory Survey
for the Milcon P-902 Naval Weapons
Station Seal Beach, Orange County,
California
1997 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01581 WhitneyDesautels,
Nancy A.

Cultural Resource Assessment of the
Hellman Ranch, Seal Beach
1997 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01599 Clevenger,
Joyce M.,
Kathleen
Crawford,
and Andrew
Pigniolo
Archaeological, Historical, and
Architectural Phase 1 Overview
Survey, Phase II Evaluation Survey
and Historic and Archaeological
Resource Protection (harp) Plan of
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach,
California
1993 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01607 Bissell,
Ronald M.

Archaeological Monitoring of
Trenching for Improvements on and
Near the Softball Facility, Seal Beach
Naval Weapons Station, Orange
County, California
1997 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01608 Stickel,
Gary E.

A Research Design and Investigation
Program for Test Level Evaluations of
Archaeological Sites Located on the
Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach,
California
1996 Within Project
area
OR-01609 York,
Andrew L.,
James H.

Cleland, and
Michael
Baksh
A Research Design for the Evaluation
of Archaeological Sites Within the
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area
1997 Within Project
area
OR-01610 Stickel,
Gary E.

An Archaeological Site Survey of the
Hellman Ranch, City of Seal Beach,
California
1996 0 - 1 Mile
177
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 158
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-01643 York,
Andrew,
James H.

Cleland, and
Michael G.

Baksk
A Research Design for the Evaluation
of Archaeological Sites Within the
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area
1997 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01816 Stickel,
Gary E.

Phase I Archaeological Survey of a
Parcel Proposed for an Experimental
Anaerobic Bioremediation Program
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach
1996 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01897 Unknown Historic Properties Overview and
Evaluations on the Naval Weapons
Station, Seal Beach
1997 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01931 Davy,
Douglas M.

Archaeological Resources Protection
Plan, Decommissioning of the
Research, Testing, and Evaluation
Area, Naval Weapons Station, Seal
Beach, Orange County, California
1997 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01958 Clevenger,
Joyce and
Kathleen
Crawford
Phase I - Overview Survey and Phase
II - Archaeological, Historical, and
Architectural Eligibility Study of
Cultural Resources on the Naval
Weapons Station, Seal Beach
1995 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01960 Mason,
Roger and
Richard
Cerreto
Archaeological Resource Protection
Plan for the Background Study
Sampling Areas at Naval Weapons
Station, Seal Beach, Orange County,
California
1995 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01969 Clevenger,
Joyce, and
Kathleen
Crawford
Final Historic and Archaeological
Resources Protection (harp) Plan for
the Naval Weapons, Station, Seal
Beach
1997 0 - 1 Mile
OR-01989 Berryman,
Judy, and
Roy Pettus
Archaeological Resources Protection
Plan for the Site Inspection Work Plan
at the Research, Testing, and
Evaluation Area, Naval Weapons
Station, Seal Beach, Orange County,
California
1995 0 - 1 Mile
178
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 159
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-02033 Mason,
Roger D.

Research Design for Evaluation of
Coastal Archaeological Sites in
Northern Orange County, California
1987 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02070 Bissell,
Ronald M.

Archaeological Monitoring at
Installation Restoration (IR) Site 73,
Naval Weapons Station
(NAVWPNSTA), Seal Beach,
California (CH2M Hill Prime Contract
No. N6871-96-d-2299)
2000 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02072 Bissell,
Ronald M.

Archaeological Services at Naval
Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA),
Seal Beach, California (CH2M Hill
Prime Contract No. N6871-96-d2299), Relative to Sampling at Installation Restoration (IR) Sites 12,
16, 25, 37, 38, 42, 44/45, Aoc 6,
Swmu 24, 56, 57, Osr, an
2000 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02284 Mason,
Roger and
Cerreto,
Richard
Archaeological Resources Protection
Plan for Installation Restoration Sites
5, 8, 12, 16, 21, 40, 44, and 46 at
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach
Orange County, Ca
1995 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02286 Bissell,
Ronald M.

Archaeological Monitoring at Repair
Site #21, Naval Weapons Station
(NAVWPNSTA) Seal Beach, Ca
2000 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02604 Duke, Curt Cultural Resource Assessment at & T Wireless Services Facility No. 13001a
Orange County, California
2002 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02687 Miller, Jason
A.

Archaeological Monitoring of
Trenching for the Main Telephone
Cable Feed Vault on the Seal Beach
Naval Weapons Station, California
2000 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02688 Baillie,
David
Replacement of a Segment of Clay
Sewer Pie, Naval Weapons Station,
Seal Beach, Orange County,
California
2002 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02774 Shepard,
Richard S.

Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment: Los Alamitos Pump
Station Project in Long Beach, Los
Angeles County, and Seal Beach,
Orange County, California
2003 Within Project
area
179
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 160
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-03172 Tang, Bai
"Tom" and
Casey
Tibbet
Historic Resources Evaluation Report
Seal Beach Bike Trail Project City of
Seal Beach, Orange County 12-ORA1-pm 31.11/32.72-kp 50.07/52.66 Ea Oc 3700
2004 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03173 Willey,
Lorraine M.,
and Jackson
Underwood
Archaeological Testing of a Portion of
Site CA-ORA-322/1118 Gardeners
Road and Bolsa Avenue Naval
Weapons Station Seal Beach,
California
2003 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03379 Chatters,
James Carl
Final Archaeological Data Recovery
Report for a Portion of Prehistoric
Archaeological Site CA-ORA322/1118 to Mitigate Impacts of Soil Removal Remediation
2003 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03391 York,
Andrew L.,
James H.

Cleland,
Lorraine
Willey, and
Charlane
Gross
Mitigation Plan for Significant
Cultural Resource Discoveries
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area
Seal Beach, California
2003 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03562 Monica
Strauss
Negative Archaeological Monitoring
Report for the 400 Marina Drive
Development Project, City of Seal
Beach, CA
2009 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03714 Bonner,
Wayne H.

Cultural Resources Survey and
Historic Architectural Assessment
Results for Sprint
Telecommunications Facility
Candidate OG54XC414D (Browning),
1971 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, Orange
County, California
2004 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03715 Bonner,
Wayne H.

Cultural Resources Records Search
and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile
Candidate LA 02899D (Fire Station),
120 1/2 West Walnut Street, Station
#5, Santa Ana, Orange County,
California
2008 0 - 1 Mile
180
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 161
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-03735 Bai "Tom"
Tang
Due-Diligence Historical
Archaeological Resources Review,
City of Seal Beach Sewer Capital
Improvement Projects, City of Seal
Beach, Orange County, California
2008 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03762 Ehringer,
Candace
Negative Archaeological Monitoring
Report for the Hellman Ranch Tank
Farm Replacement Project, City of
Seal Beach, California
2009 Within Project
area
OR-03821 Tang, Bai
and Michael
Hogan
Identification and Evaluation of
Historic Properties City of Seal Beach
Sewer Capital Improvement Projects
(Southern Portion/Downtown Area)
City of Seal Beach, Orange County,
California
2009 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03828 Cleland,
James,
Andrew
York, and
Lorraine
Willey
Piecing Together the Prehistory of
Landing Hill: A Place Remembered
2007 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03870 Mason,
Roger
Historic Property Survey Report for
the West Orange County Connection,
Phase II - I-405/I605 HOV Connector
Project, Orange County, California
2009 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03922 Bonner,
Wayne
Cultural Resources Records Search
and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile
USA Candidate LA33981-E (Faith
Christian Assembly), 13820 Seal
Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach, Orange
County, California
2010 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04002 Underwood,
Jackson
Work Plan for Presence/Absence
Archaeological Testing of a Portion of
Site CA-ORA-322/1118 Gardeners
Road and Bolsa Avenue Naval
Weapons Station, Seal Beach,
California
2002 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04023 Underbrink,
Susan
Cultural Resources Records Search
and Survey Report for the Ocean
Place Project, Seal Beach, Orange
County, California
2005 0 - 1 Mile
181
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 162
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-04030 Whitaker,
Adrian R.

Evaluation of a Redeposited Site (CAORA-1711) for the Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Project P063, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Orange County, California
2011 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04031 Padon, Beth Subject: Phase I Archaeological Study Report for Alumni Center at the
University of California Irvine
Campus
2011 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04034 Bucknam,
Bonnie M.

The Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity:

A Gazetteer and Compilation of
Archaeological Site Information
1974 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04035 Weinman,
Lois J., and
E. Gary
Stickel
(also LA2399) Los Angeles-Long
Beach Harbor Areas Cultural
Resource Survey
1978 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04047 Lehman,
Jane
Seal Beach Railroad Right of Way
Property, Seal Beach Blvd. - 17th
Street - 16th Street - Electric Ave.,
Seal Beach, CA
2007 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04089 Whittenberg,
Lee
Section 106 Compliance Information
City of Seal Beach Water Tank Fence
Replacement Project, Seal Beach
Naval Weapons Station
2001 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04105 Wlodarski,
Robert J.

Cultural Resources Records Search
and Archaeological Survey Results for
the proposed Clear Wireless, LLC,
Site CA-ORC5863A (OG03XC029C)
located at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach,
Orange County, California 90740
2010 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04143 Baillie,
David
Sprinkler System Replacement at CAORA-322/1118, Reference #5758 Ser.

N45W/0153
2004 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04172 Chasteen,
Carrie
Historic Property Survey Report San
Diego Freeway (I-405) Improvement
Project SR-73 to I-605, Orange and
Los Angeles Counties
2011 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04189 Gundrum,
Darrell
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach
Proposal to Improve Security and
Access Control Measures at Two
Installation Gates: Gate 1 and Gate 9
2005 0 - 1 Mile
182
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 163
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-04223 Flynn, Chris Notification of Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions for
the Bridge Deck Maintenance and
Sealing at 30 Locations Throughout
Orange County, California
2011 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04307 Baille,
David
Reevaluation of the National Register
Eligibility Status of Naval Weapons
Station Seal Beach, Orange County
and Naval Weapons Station Seal
Beach, Detachment Fallbrook, San
Diego County
2003 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04346 Bissell,
Ronald
Discovery Plan, Archaeological
Services at Naval Weapons Station
(NAVWPNSTA), Seal Beach,
California for the Upgrade of Main
Telephone Cable Feed Vault
2000 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04505 Brunzell,
David
Cultural Resources Assessment of the
Seal BH 1 Project, Seal Beach,
Orange County, California (BCR
Consulting Project No. TRF1427)
2015 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04553 Bonner,
Wayne H.

Phase I Survey Marina Drive, Seal
Beach
1999 0 - 1 Mile
183
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 164
APPENDIX F. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES
184
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 165
Table F – 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within a 3-mile radius of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
000102
CA-LAN102Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1966 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000231
CA-LAN231Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000232
CA-LAN232Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000233
CA-LAN233Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000234
CA-LAN234Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Puvungna Village Site,
Surface Shell, Chipping
Waste
1960 NR: 1D 2 - 3
miles
19-
000235
CA-LAN235Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Puvungna Village Site,
Surface Shell, Chipping
Waste
1960 NR: 1D 2 - 3
miles
19-
000236
CA-LAN236Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000271
CA-LAN271Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1959 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000272
CA-LAN272Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Partial Burial 1961 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
19-
000273
CA-LAN273Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
185
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 166
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
000274
CA-LAN274Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000275
CA-LAN275Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000306
CA-LAN306Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Gabrielino Village Site 1951,
1964,
1972,
1973,
1997
1D 1 - 2
miles
19-
000698
CA-LAN698Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Surface Shell, Chipping
Waste
1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000699
CA-LAN699Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Chipping Waste 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000700
CA-LAN700Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000701
CA-LAN701Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000702
CA-LAN702Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1974 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000703
CA-LAN703Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000705
CA-LAN705Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
001000
CA-LAN1000Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979;
1994
Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
001001
CA-LAN1001Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
001002
CA-LAN1002Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
186
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 167
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
001003
CA-LAN1003Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1979,
1994
Recommended
- not a
resource
2 - 3
miles
19-
001004
CA-LAN1004Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979,
1994
Recommended
- not a
resource
2 - 3
miles
19-
001005
CA-LAN1005Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979,
1994
Recommended
- not a
resource
2 - 3
miles
19-
001006
CA-LAN1006Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
001007
CA-LAN1007Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1979 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
001821
CA-LAN001821Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Site 1990 Unevaluated 0.25 -

Seal Beach City CouncilDecember 8, 2025

Seal Beach City Council
December 8, 2025