Cultural Resources 4.5 - kerncounty.com I/4.5... · cultural surveys of the project site, analyzes...

Pacific Wind Energy Project 4.5‐1 June 2010 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Section 4.5 Cultural Resources

4.5.1 Introduction This section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides contextual background information on historical resources in the project area, including the area’s prehistoric, ethnographic, and historical settings. This section also summarizes the results of preliminary cultural surveys of the project site, analyzes the proposed project’s potential impacts on cultural resources, and identifies mitigation measures to address adverse impacts.

This section is based on the cultural resource records searches, inventories, and Native American scoping conducted by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. and discussed in their Pacific Wind Energy Project, Cultural Resources Technical Report (Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2009 and 2010a) (Appendix F). The cultural evaluation was conducted in compliance with Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) to identify archaeological or historical resources in the area of potential effect. Due to the confidential nature of the location of cultural resources, this report does not include maps or location descriptions. The cultural resources report can be found on file at the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department.

For the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), “historical resources” generally refer to prehistoric and historical archaeological sites and the built environment. Historical resources can also include areas determined to be important to Native Americans such as “sacred sites.” Sacred sites are most often important to Native American groups because of the role of the location in traditional ceremonies or activities.

4.5.2 Environmental Setting The proposed project study area is located within the northern portion of the Antelope Valley on generally undeveloped land in the foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains and can be characterized as a gradually northwest-to-southeast-sloping plateau. The area supports habitats containing native and nonnative species typical of the upper Mojave Desert and lower reaches of the Tehachapi Mountains (Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2009).

Prehistoric Setting

Archaeological sequences for the Great Basin and Mojave Desert are grouped into Late Pleistocene and Early, Middle, and Late Holocene time frames, with period and phase definitions varying by region.

Late Pleistocene Pre‐Projectile Point Period (Before 12,000 BP) The earliest Pleistocene archaeological sites, which may be earlier than 12,000 years before the present (BP), the pre-Paleoindian period, are often referred to as pre-Clovis, or pre-projectile point and are viewed as controversial by many archaeologists because of the lack of dateable contexts and the uncertainty in the accuracy of dates obtained from some artifacts submitted for analysis (Wallace, 1962). One of the most thorough studies on this time period is Emma Lou Davis’s 1978 study of Pleistocene Lake China, Ridgecrest, in eastern California (Davis, 1978).

County of Kern 4.5 Cultural Resources

Pacific Wind Energy Project 4.5‐2 June2010 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Other examples are the Calico Early Man Site and the Manix Lake Lithic Industry (Leakey et al., 1968; Simpson, 1958).

Paleoindian Period (Circa 12,000 BP to 10,000 BP) The subsequent Paleoindian Period is recognized throughout the west by the presence of fluted projectile points, such as the well-known Clovis points, and associated artifacts. Recent calibrations of these radiocarbon dates suggest that fluted points may be up to 2,000 years older than previously thought, with a range of about 13,000 to 11,000 calendar years BP (Fagan, 2005). Although many fluted points have been found in the Great Basin and Mojave Desert, none of these have been recovered in dateable contexts (Dillon, 2002). Davis identified several sites associated with the shoreline at Pleistocene Lake China that contained fluted points (Davis, 1978). In the vicinity of the proposed project site, fluted points have been reported in the El Paso Mountains, Antelope Valley, and adjacent mountains (Dillon, 2002; Earle et al., 1997).

Fluted points have traditionally been interpreted as tools used for hunting Pleistocene megafauna due to their clear association with megafauna remains in the southwestern United States. However, more recent research suggests a more diversified subsistence strategy, one including the use of productive shallow lakes and marsh environments. This interpretation flows from the fact that nearly all fluted points sites in the Great Basin were found along the perimeter of the now-extinct lakes and marshes that existed during the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene (Grayson, 1993). Some argue that this distribution may represent a bias in the visibility of older sites in that exposed older surfaces, where such sites would be found, are typically more pervasive along washes and as the center of flat, playa-bearing locations, in areas not obscured by younger deposits (Basgall and Hall, 1994). This bias would provide a narrow view of subsistence and adaptive strategies during the early Holocene to Late Pleistocene periods if in fact additional activity areas located away from these resources are not being recognized. Although the level of utilization and focus on these areas is debated, these environments would undoubtedly have provided a rich habitat for numerous plants and animals and were likely exploited by Paleoindian peoples.

Early Holocene Lake Mojave Period (Circa 10,000 BP to 7000 BP) The quantity of archaeological remains in the western United States increases at the beginning of the Holocene Period, about 10,000 years BP. Sites dating to the Early Holocene are found along the shorelines of Pleistocene dry lakes and are characterized by the occurrence of large stemmed and concave base projectile points, as well as other distinctive flaked stone tools. The point types that are associated with this period are known as Lake Mojave and Silver Lake projectile points, named for the dry lakes where they were first found (Campbell et al., 1937). Lake Mojave sites are relatively rare in the western Mojave Desert, but Earle et al. reported at least five sites on Edwards Air Force Base with Lake Mojave Period points (Earle et al., 1997; Sutton, 1987).

Little is known about the subsistence strategies during this period, although it is assumed that hunting was a primary focus. The presence of projectile points and the relative lack of ground stone tools indicative of plant processing lend credence to this view. Faunal assemblages at several sites of this period have also supported this assumption, with evidence for both small (e.g., lagomorph) and large (e.g., artiodactyl) animal exploitation (Basgall, 2000; Basgall and



Hall, 1994). As with the Paleoindian Period, however, the presence of Lake Mojave Period sites near extinct Pleistocene and early Holocene lakes suggest a diverse range of resources may have been utilized.

Middle Holocene Pinto Period (Circa 7000 BP to 4000 BP) The Middle Holocene is characterized by the appearance of Pinto series projectile points in the Mojave Desert (Sutton, 1996). Pinto points are smaller than Lake Mojave points, and their name derives from the Pinto Basin where they were first defined (Campbell and Campbell, 1935). The period is not well delineated because of a paucity of chronometric data and disagreement on the definition and dating of the Pinto series (Warren, 2002).

With the onset of the Middle Holocene, the climate became dryer and hotter throughout the deserts of the western United States. Sites dating to this time period exhibit diverse artifact assemblages, marked by the presence of both hunting tools and milling equipment. Many interpret these assemblages as a move from exploitation of only higher-ranked food items, such as large animals, to a more diversified subsistence strategy that also includes low-ranked resources such as seeds, as a response to the climatic shift to more arid conditions. Settlement patterns also appear to change in response to climatic conditions with a move from lakeshore habitats, which became dry, to areas around streams or springs (Sutton, 1996).

Late Holocene Gypsum Period (Circa 4000/3500 BP to 1500 BP) About 4,000 years ago, climatic conditions shifted again, this time to the cooler, moister conditions characterizing the Late Holocene. This period is characterized by the replacement of Pinto points with Gypsum and Elko series projectile points. In the Owens Valley region, at approximately the same time period, Pinto points were replaced by Humboldt and Elko series projectile points.

An increase in population, trade, and social complexity is suggested with the more favorable climate conditions. The mortar and pestle appears to have been introduced during this period, which is hypothesized to mark the beginning of tree crop utilization, such as mesquite and oak. There was an increase in the use of seeds, including piñon, which is indicated by the presence of milling stones. However, hunting of a variety of fauna, including mountain sheep, remained an important part of the economy. This period is also marked by increased evidence of ritual activities as indicated by numerous rock art sites (e.g., Coso Range) and the discovery of split-twig figurines at Newberry Cave in the central Mojave Desert (Smith et al., 1957). The presence of split-twig figurines also suggests interaction with the Southwest culture area during this time period.

Rose Spring Period (Circa 1500 to 1000/600 BP) Throughout the Great Basin, Elko and other dart-size points were replaced about 1,500 years ago with Rose Spring and Eastgate projectile points, often grouped together under the label Rosegate (Thomas, 1981). This occurrence, which correlates with the introduction of the bow and arrow around AD 500 (Yohe, 1998), may also mark the beginning of the Numic expansion, which many researchers believe emanated from southeastern California.



The appearance of Rose Spring series projectile points marks the beginning of the Rose Spring Period in the Mojave Desert (Lanning, 1963; Yohe, 1998). Major villages and numerous other sites dating to this time period have been recorded in eastern California. Many of these contain bedrock milling features and portable milling stones, along with marine shell artifacts and obsidian from extralocal sources, suggesting long-distance trade. Two sites exhibit architectural features distinct to this period; at Cantil, there was evidence of a wickiup-like structure, and the Koehn Lake site shows evidence of a pit house (Sutton, 1996). Subsistence strategies during this time period appear to have shifted from one with a predominant focus on hunting of large game to one focused on utilization of a variety of plant resources, supplemented with some hunting of medium to small game such as lagomorphs and rodents (Sutton, 1996).

Late Prehistoric Period (Circa 1000 BP to Contact AD 1770) The final time period is known as the Late Prehistoric in the Mojave Desert. The period began about 1000 BP and lasted until historic contact. Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood series projectile points replaced the larger points from the previous period, and pottery first appeared in the form of Owens Valley brown ware. During this period, trade networks increased along the Mojave River and over the San Gabriel Mountains, and groups from the Antelope Valley may have served as intermediaries among populations located in peripheral areas (Earle et al., 1997). Subsistence strategies remained much the same from the Gypsum Period onward, with a focus on collection of plant resources, supplemented by hunting of medium to small animals.

Ethnographic Setting The cultural resources study area is located at the transition between the mountainous zones (southern Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi) to the west and north, and the Mojave Desert to the east. The biozones existing within these areas, though varying with time and space according to differing climatic regimes, would have provided diverse resources for prehistoric inhabitants in the area. At the time of European contact, these inhabitants were the Kawaiisu and the Kitanemuk.

Kawaiisu The Kawaiisu lived on the boundary between the Great Basin and California culture areas and are considered to have maintained aspects of both. They have been characterized as hunters and gatherers who primarily resided in a core area located in the southern Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountains, making forays into the Mojave Desert for resources when needed. They were organized into small, nonsedentary bands that traveled seasonally, following available resources. Linguistically, Kawaiisu has been identified as a part of the Numic branch of the extensive Uto-Aztecan language family, which includes most languages of the Great Basin, extending south from southern Idaho into Mexico and east into Arizona.

The Kawaiisu utilized numerous food plants found in the area, such as piñon, juniper, yucca, chia, wild rice, sunflower, and buckwheat. Mesquite and screwbean were also obtained from the desertareas to the east. Zigmond identifies 233 plant species utilized by the Kawaiisu, of which 112 were used for food and beverage (Zigmond, 1981). Deer was a major source of meat, hunted with the bow and arrow, and supplemented by other large and small animals, birds, rodents, reptiles, and insects. Salt was also important in their diet and was collected from Koehn Lake, 30 miles from the Tomo-Kahni area or from Proctor Lake in the Tehachapi Valley when water levels at Koehn Lake were low (Tomo-Kahni State Historic Park, 2005).



Basket making was an important tradition among the Kawaiisu, who used numerous types of baskets for food collecting, processing, and storing, such as seedbeaters, burden baskets, containers, winnowers, trays, and hoppers (Zigmond, 1986).

Raw material for tool making, such as chert, was likely obtained from areas near Red Rock Canyon, while obsidian was acquired through trade with groups from the Coso Volcanic Field (east of the Sierra Nevada). Long distance exchange with coastal areas is also evident, with the presence of marine shell artifacts in some sites attributed to the Kawaiisu (e.g., CA-KER-230).

During the winter months, the Kawaiisu lived in tomokahni, which are circular, above-ground structures with vertical and transverse poles bound together and covered with brush, bark, and tule mats (Zigmond, 1986). Other structures included open, flat-roofed shade houses (havakahni), sweathouses (tivikahni), circular brush enclosures, and small granaries.

The Kawaiisu are also known for their polychromatic rock art, which shares many attributes with the rock art of the Chumash. A famous Kawaiisu rock art site exhibiting many pictographic elements is Teddy Bear Cave (CA-KER-508), located along the western edge of Sand Canyon, approximately 12 miles northeast of Tehachapi. Teddy Bear Cave is one site within Nettle Spring, an archaeological complex that also includes a large habitation area (CA-KER-230) along with numerous other localities. CA-KER-230 is characterized by numerous rock rings, over 400 bedrock mortars, and rock art (Sutton, 2001). Nearby sites include small camps, additional rock art localities, and a cremation site, all of which are potentially related to the Nettle Spring complex. Teddy Bear Cave is important in the oral history of the Kawaiisu people as the place where their people and the world were created (Sutton, 2001).

Kitanemuk The Kitanemuk inhabited the Tehachapi Mountains at the northwestern edge of the Antelope Valley. The Kitanemuk have been referred to as the main inhabitants of the Antelope Valley, but they are nonetheless one of the least known groups in California (Sutton, 1979; Sutton, 1987). In contrast with the Kawaiisu, the Kitanemuk culture shared more similarities with southern coastal groups such as the Chumash than with the Great Basin groups (Blackburn and Bean, 1978). The Kitanemuk spoke a Serrano language of the Takic branch of Uno-Aztecan language family that was shared by groups living as far as Yucca Valley and Twentynine Palms.

The Kitanemuk lived in permanent village sites that functioned as year-round base camps. During the spring, summer, and fall months, gathering expeditions were sent to satellite villages or temporary camps in pursuit of available seasonal resources (Earle, 1997).

Modern-day descendants of the Kawaiisu and the Kitanemuk live at the Tule River Reservation, Porterville, and Tejon Ranch (Wallace, 1962).

Historic Context Ethnohistory Native American groups were subject to dramatic social and cultural changes after the Spanish began colonizing coastal California in 1769. Of primary importance in affecting these changes were the establishment of the Spanish mission system throughout the State and the introduction of new diseases, which spread rapidly and decimated the native population (Earle, 1997). Although the initial occupation of California occurred relatively quickly along the coastlines, the interior portion of the State, such as the Mojave Desert region, did not feel the effects until much later.



The first documented expedition into Kern County was in 1772 and was led by Don Pedro Fages who traveled from San Diego to San Luis Obispo via Cajón Pass, Mojave Desert, Hughes Lake, Antelope Valley, Tejón Pass, Cañada de los Uvas (Grapevine Canyon), and Buena Vista Lake. Don Fages left the first written record of exploration in the south San Joaquin Valley (California Office of Historic Preservation, 2007). In 1776, Francisco Garces explored the region, including the Cummings and Tehachapi Valleys in the Tehachapi Mountains, when traveling from the San Joaquin Valley to the Mojave River near Barstow. Historic accounts also indicate that Garces left traces of his visit at Willow Springs (near Rosamond) and on Castle Butte (near California City) (City of Mojave, 2007). After this time, little documentation exists for European explorations or visits to the Mojave Desert and beyond until the 1800s; however, it is certain that such contacts occurred. Aside from these minor encounters, Native Americans residing in these areas were likely indirectly affected by disruptions in trade caused by the European occupation in the coastal and adjacent areas.

In the early 1800s, the Spanish increased their efforts to incorporate Native Americans into the mission system. Native Americans from interior tribes were either brought or came to the San Gabriel and San Fernando missions, established in 1771 and 1797, respectively, which may have exerted influence as far as the upper Mojave River. Although the Spanish were determined to gather all natives into the mission system, there are numerous examples of interior Native American villages not represented in the mission registers, such as in the southern Antelope Valley, suggesting low levels of interaction or influence prior to this time. For example, according to Earle, the first baptism of a Kawaiisu member was not recorded in the missions until 1821 (Earle, 1997). As a side effect of the increased number of missions in Southern California, native neophytes attempted to escape missions by running away and seeking refuge with interior tribes, such as in the Southern San Joaquin Valley or the Mojave Desert and adjacent mountains. This impacted the existing tribes in these areas because forays into these regions were made by the Spanish on numerous occasions to recapture these people, and some tribes became mixed with the influx of natives from different tribal territories. This tribal intermixing continued after the end of the mission system in 1834. With the reduction in the native populations, tribal interaction spheres necessarily increased and territorial boundaries became blurred.

During the period of Mexican rule (1821–1846), the western Mojave Desert remained relatively outside the Hispanic frontier. The closest Hispanic settlement was the Rancho San Francisquito in the Santa Clarita–Newhall area, which is approximately 20 miles south of Antelope Valley. After the secession to the United States in 1848, however, this situation would change dramatically.

More frequent expeditions or explorations into the area were made by Hispanic and American graziers, miners, and adventurers, and by 1853, a U.S. Army survey party was sent to search for possible railway routes that would connect the San Joaquin and Antelope Valleys. In 1854, Fort Tejon was established in Grapevine Canyon on the west end of the Tehachapi Mountains. This marked the opening of settlement of San Joaquin Valley and the Tehachapi Mountains (Earle, 1997). With this encroachment, Native American populations were caught in an environment of violence between the Numic desert raiders and the new settlers forcing them to relocate into reservations and move deeper into the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Earle, 1997).



Euro‐American Era

In 1851, an exploration party sent out by John C. Fremont discovered gold in the mountains near the Kern River. This discovery led to the first Kern River gold rush (Morton, 1962). From 1853 to 1863, the San Joaquin Valley, the Tehachapi Mountains, and western Antelope Valley (all of which had been previously considered remote areas) became centers of gold and silver mining. Mining towns such as Randsburg, Calico, and Oro Grande were established during this period. Rosamond, Barstow, and Mojave became suppliers for mining operations (Earle et al., 1998). In addition, the introduction of the stagecoach allowed for increased mail communication and for the transportation of goods and passengers between the desert towns and the main points of commerce. The first stagecoaches began operation in California in 1849 with two lines: one ran between San Francisco and San Jose, and the other ran from Sacramento to towns on the American River (Beck and Haase, 1974). In Kern County, the first stage line began operation soon after Fort Tejon was established in 1854 (Burmeister, 1977). The most utilized stagecoach route closest to the proposed project site went from El Monte and Los Angeles all the way to Tehachapi or the San Joaquin Valley. The route crossed San Fernando Pass (also known as Beale’s Cut) through San Francisquito Canyon where there was a way station for the travelers. The journey continued to Elizabeth Lake where another station was located. At this point, the stagecoach route split to the north and to the east. Travelers heading to Tehachapi took the north route, which continued north to Willow Springs. Willow Springs was an important way station for the travelers and had been used by Native Americans before the stagecoach routes, the pioneers, and the teamsters took advantage of it. Today, what remains of the Willow Springs station is part of an adobe wall and the spring itself (Barras, 1976; Grossard 1997; Tabares, 2006). The route continued to the Oak Creek Station and crossed the Oak Creek Pass to Tehachapi. According to Barras, lighter wagons utilized this route to get to Kern River country while heavier teams may have traveled by way of Jawbone Canyon and Kelso Valley, adjacent to the current cultural resources study area (Barras, 1976). Travelers going to the San Joaquin Valley continued to the west from Elizabeth Lake over the Tejon Pass, following the south edge of the Antelope Valley, all the way to the San Joaquin Valley (Barras, 1976).

The construction of the Southern Pacific Railway across Antelope Valley began in the mid-1800s and was completed in 1876. The Town of Mojave was founded in 1876, in response to the Southern Pacific line reaching the area the same year. Mojave became the Southern Pacific terminus for the 20-mule team wagons that operated between Death Valley and Mojave from 1884 to 1889. The route ran from the Harmony Borax Mining Company works, later acquired by the Pacific Coast Borax Company, to the railroad loading dock in Mojave over 165 miles of mountain and desert trail. After 1875, the use of the railroad system and the closing of mines forced the main stage lines in Kern County to come to an end (although small lines continued to transport passengers up until 1912) (Burmeister, 1977). This period was followed by an influx of people during the Southern California land boom of the late 1880s when immigrants ended up in the Antelope Valley and Mojave Desert areas in search for more affordable land near water. Between the 1880s and 1920s, climatic conditions in the region altered dramatically between wet and dry years. Only colonies with enough water supplies for human consumption and irrigation survived; the others failed. However, by the 1930s, there were more than 80 towns in the Antelope Valley, most of them located along the railroads (Taşkıran et al., 1997). The importance



of gold mining operations ended around 1942 due to the War Production Board issuance of Limitation Order L-208, which classified gold mines as nonessential for the war (Taşkıran et al., 1997).

The military arrived in the western Mojave Desert in 1928 when the dry lake bed near Muroc became an area for general aviation practices. In 1942, the facility was named Army Air Base, Muroc Lake, which later became Muroc Air Force Base in 1948. In 1949, the base was renamed Edwards Air Force Base (Greenwood and McIntyre, 1980).

Another important development in the history of the area is the construction of the first Los Angeles Aqueduct. From 1904 through May 1905, the City of Los Angeles began to acquire land and water rights in Owens Valley. In 1907, the voters of Los Angeles approved a bond measure to build an aqueduct system that would divert water from the Owens River to Los Angeles (Smith, 1974). The water from the Owens River was needed by the city’s growing population, which had reached 100,000 by 1900 (Hundley, 2001). Constructed between 1908 and 1913, the aqueduct totaled about 226 miles in length and at the time was the largest single water project in the world. In addition to the construction of the aqueduct itself, the development of new infrastructure was required to support the project. The entire construction of the aqueduct required thousands of laborers, housed in camps alongside the aqueduct route, which left an imprint on the local economies.

The historic occupation of the area is directly linked to the history of the nearest town, Rosamond. The Southern Pacific Railroad set tracks there in 1876 and owned the town until 1887. The company sold several lots, and homesteaders began to populate the town. Among these homesteaders was Charles A. Graves, an African American who moved to the town in 1882 and became one of the first successful cattlemen and miners of the desert area (Kern Centennial Committee, 1966). Graves became the first postmaster in Rosamond from 1898 to 1903 and donated land to install the first school in 1907 (Kern Centennial Committee, 1966; Burmeister, 1977). The economic development of Rosamond was associated with raising sheep and cattle in the late 1800s, and by 1920, agriculture also became productive in the area with crops including alfalfa, cotton, potatoes, onion, carrots, and corn (Burmeister, 1977).

The Homestead Act

In 1862 the Homestead Act was passed, allowing settlement of public lands and requiring only residence, improvement, and cultivation of the land. Any person, a citizen or person intending to become a citizen, 21 years of age or older, and the head of a household could apply for land. With five years residence and improvements/cultivation, only a $15.00 fee was required to get 160 acres (Anonymous, n.d.[b]). The Homestead Act was repealed in 1976. Any homesteads which may have existed in the project area could have remnant building foundations or other features that meet the criteria of a historic resource under CEQA.

The Mining Act

In 1866, The Mining Act declared all mineral lands of public domain free and open to exploration and occupancy (Hage, n.d.). The General Land Office established mineral survey districts. Prospectors could file a claim on a mineral vein or load at General Land Office for $5.00 per acre.



According to the table of the Mines and Mineral Resources of Kern County California publication there are no mining districts located in or around the vicinity of the proposed project area. Nevertheless, quarries, prospects, and mines dot the landscape in and around the project region. The closest known, is a calcite mine owned by California Portland Cement Company situated approximately 2 miles northwest of the northeastern corner of the project site. The mine occurs in Sections 10, 14, and 15 of Township 10 North and Range 15.

Paleontological Setting

Paleontological resources are the mineralized (fossilized) remains of prehistoric plants and animals and the mineralized impressions (trace fossils) left as indirect evidence of the forma and activity of such organisms. These resources are located within sedimentary rocks or alluvium and are considered to be nonrenewable.

The cultural resources study area is characterized by surface exposures of three rock units: older Quaternary alluvium (Qc), consisting of nonmarine sediments, deposited during the Pleistocene epoch between 1.8 million and 11,000 years before present (BP); recent Quaternary alluvium (Qal) deposited during the Holocene epoch between 11,000 years or less BP; and Quaternary dune sands (Qs) also deposited during the Holocene period (Scott, 2008).

Formations that contain vertebrate fossils are considered more sensitive because vertebrate fossils tend to be rare and fragmentary. Formations containing microfossils, plant casts, and invertebrate fossils are more common. A significant fossil deposit is a rock unit or formation that contains significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. This is defined as comprising one or more identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, and any associated invertebrate and plant fossils, traces, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, and stratigraphic information (ichnites and trace fossils generated by vertebrate animals such as trackways or nests and middens), which provide datable material and climatic information. This definition excludes invertebrate or botanical fossils except when present within a given vertebrate assemblage. However, invertebrate and botanical fossils may be significant as environmental indicators associated with vertebrate fossils or may have scientific importance if they are rare or provide stratigraphic or tectonically important data.

Existing Cultural Resources Methods Used to Identify Known Cultural Resources

In order to characterize the archaeological sensitivity of the proposed project, identify and record resources, and define the types of artifacts, features, and Native American resources that could be impacted, several studies were done. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted a review of the project area that included a literature review, consultation with Native Americans, and field investigations (Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2009). The following paragraphs provide details regarding these methods.

Records Search

Archaeological records searches were conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, housed at California State University, Bakersfield, in August 2008, and April 2009. The searches included a literature review of all known relevant cultural resources site records, surveys, and excavation reports to determine potential archaeological resources within a one-mile



radius of the cultural resources study area. In addition, the 2008 edition of the Historic Property Data File for Kern County―which includes the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Historical Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical Interest―was searched to ascertain the presence of known historical resources within the study area.

Field Surveys

For the proposed project, the cultural resources study area corresponds to the approximately 11,050-acre area of privately owned land within which the 8,300-acre proposed project property is located. The cultural resources study area includes areas evaluated for the presence of prehistoric and historical resources during the present effort, through record searches, consultation, and/or field survey. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) represents the portions of the proposed project in which the maximum extent of potential ground disturbance would occur. The APE is composed of the proposed project area and a 60-foot survey extension area around the proposed project area to allow for construction usage and minor adjustments in the proposed project area (Figure 4.5-1).

Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted pedestrian surveys of approximately 4,311 acres within the cultural resources study area, including 100 percent of the APE from September 2008 until May 2010. All areas were surveyed on foot with field investigation teams composed of three persons, space 10 to 20 meters (about 33 to 66 feet) apart depending on the terrain. The use of 20-meter (about 66-foot) spacing was limited to areas of flat topography, low vegetative cover, and high visibility. When an artifact was found, the surrounding area was examined to determine the extent of the cultural material. The determination of a site was based on the analysis of the artifact classes represented, the context in which they were found, and their spatial relation to other cultural material across the landscape. Individual artifacts and small, very sparse scatters of artifacts that appeared to be secondary deposits were identified as isolates. Identified sites and isolates were given field numbers using the prefix PW (Pacific Wind). Global positioning system (GPS) data points were collected with submeter accuracy by the Trimble GeoXH unit for all sites and isolates encountered during the survey, and their locations were mapped on the appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles using the postprocessed GPS data. In addition, all sites and isolates were recorded on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation site record forms (DPR 523 series). Field mapping of sites was supported by the Trimble GeoXH unit, supplemented with field sketch maps and photographs. No artifacts were collected during the survey. (Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2009 and 2010a)

Native American Consultation

Sapphos Environmental, Inc. contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on August 22, 2008, for a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF), to determine if any known Native American cultural properties (e.g., traditional use or gathering areas, places of religious or sacred activity, etc.) are present within the cultural resources study area. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. received a written response from the NAHC on August 29, 2008, stating that no Native American cultural resources within the immediate project area are listed in the SLF; the NAHC requested that Native American individuals and organizations be contacted to elicit information and/or

December 2008

Figure 4.5-1Cultural Resources Direct Impact Areas,

Areas of Potential Effect (APE), and Archaeological Survey Coverage

Pacific Wind Energy ProjectDraft Environmental Impact Report


June 20104.5-11

Source: Sapphos, 2010.



concerns regarding cultural resource issues related to the proposed project. Letters inviting comments about resources or sacred areas in the project area were sent out on September 2, 2008 to the Native American Contact list provided by the NAHC and to the list of tribes maintained by the County. Only one response had been received as of October 2009. In a letter dated September 28, 2008, the Tejon Indian Tribe indicated that, although the project is within an area used by their ancestors, they have no specific information about resources there. They asked to be notified if a site is uncovered. Because the proposed project area was modified to include additional acreage, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. contacted the NAHC again in April 2009 for a supplemental SLF review. The NAHC responded on April 29, 2009, again stating that no Native American cultural resources within the immediate project area are listed in the SLF. A second set of letters inviting comments about resources or sacred areas in the project area were sent out on April 23, 2009, to the Native American Contact list provided by the NAHC and to the list of tribes maintained by the County. As of October 2009, no other responses have been received.

Results and Evaluation of Known Cultural Resources Records Search

The results of the literature review indicate that seven archaeological surveys were previously conducted within a one-mile radius of the study area (KE 644, KE 991, KE 1918, KE 355, KE 2915, KE 3372, and KE 3534).

Prehistoric Archaeological Sites and Isolates These surveys identified one prehistoric archaeological site and 13 prehistoric isolates within a one-mile radius of the cultural resources study area and five prehistoric archaeological sites (CA-KER-303, -733, -2172, -7216, and -7217) and two prehistoric isolates that are located within the cultural resources study area boundary. Of the five previously identified prehistoric archeological sites that are within the cultural resources study area, two (CA-KER-303 and CA-KER-733) are relatively large and described below. The remaining three sites (CA-KER-2172, -7216, and -7217) consist of lithic scatters; two contain ground stone (CA-KER-7216 and CA-KER-7217) and one includes a hearth (CA-KER-2172). None of the previously recorded sites have been evaluated for CRHR eligibility or are within the proposed project APE.

CA-KER-303 (Previously Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) CA-KER-303 is a complex village site that appears to have been occupied year-round. The site contains multiple house pits, midden, and the largest cemetery known in the western Mojave Desert, which may have included up to 100 burials (Sutton, 1988).

CA-KER-733 (Previously Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) CA-KER-733 is a large site containing midden, hearths, and a lithic scatter. The artifacts assemblage is dominated by shell beads and hearth features. Sutton concluded that CA-KER-733 was an ancillary locus to CA-KER-303 (Sutton, 1988).

Historical Archaeological Sites and Isolates The results of the literature review identified 25 historical archaeological sites and six historical isolates within a one-mile radius of the cultural resources study area and 13 historical archaeological sites (CA-KER-3549H, -7162H, -7179H, -7180H, -7184H, -7185H, -7186H, -7187H, -7197H, 7215H, -7223H, -7224H, -7225H, ) and no historical isolates that are located within the cultural resources study area boundary. Of the 14 historical archaeological sites that lie within the study area boundary, eight are historical refuse scatters (CA-KER-7183H, -7184H, -



7185H, -7186H, -7215H, -7223H, -7224H, and -7225H), five consist of camp or structure remnants associated with construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct (CA-KER-7162H, -7179H, -7180H, -7187H, and -7197H), and lastly, the Los Angeles Aqueduct (CA-KER-3549H). CA-KER-3549H was recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a contributing element to the proposed First Los Angeles Aqueduct Historical Archaeological District (Nilsson et al., 2006). With the exception of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, none of these sites have been evaluated for CRHR eligibility. Three of the previously recorded sites (CA-KER-3549H, CA-KER-7183H, CA-KER-7187H) are within the proposed project APE. No built environment resources have been previously recorded within the cultural resources study area.

Field Surveys

Over the duration of the current investigation, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted pedestrian surveys on more than 4,000 acres within the cultural resources study area, including 100 percent of the APE and areas that were ultimately excluded from project development activities. An initial survey area was identified within the cultural resources study area. However, as the project developed, archaeological surveys were redirected to focus on a revised conceptual site plan and corresponding project areas that were better able to avoid various land use planning and environmental constraints.

Prehistoric Archaeological Sites and Isolates Sapphos Environmental, Inc. personnel recorded a total of 54 newly discovered prehistoric archaeological resources, including 11 prehistoric sites and 43 prehistoric isolates, during the current field survey. Prehistoric isolated finds are described in Table 4.5-1. Because isolated artifacts are not considered to be historical resources or unique archaeological resources for the purposes of CEQA, the effect of the project on isolated artifacts is not considered to be significant. A description of the previously unrecorded prehistoric archaeological sites is provided below. Of these 11 prehistoric sites, only one (PWA-1) is within the project APE. None of the newly discovered prehistoric archaeological sites were formally evaluated for NRHP/CRHR eligibility during the current study. However, all newly recorded prehistoric archaeological sites were treated as potentially significant resources, and the project was designed to avoid these sites.

Table 4.5‐1. Newly Recorded Prehistoric IsolatesIsolate Description Within APE

PW ISO 4 Rhyolite flake Yes PW ISO 5 Chert projectile point and rhyolite flake Yes PW ISO 10 Chert chunk Yes PW ISO 28 Chert flake Yes PW ISO 32 Obsidian flake Yes PW ISO 33 Rhyolite flake Yes PW ISO 38 Rhyolite flake Yes PW ISO 40 Bifacial portable mortar Yes PW ISO 48 Obsidian shatter Yes PW ISO 52 Obsidian biface fragment Yes PW ISO 53 Rhyolite flake Yes PW ISO 54 Metate fragment Yes PW ISO 6 Chert flake No PW ISO 11 Obsidian biface fragment No PW ISO 12 Schist mano No PW ISO 13 Three rhyolite flakes No



Table 4.5‐1. Newly Recorded Prehistoric IsolatesIsolate Description Within APE

PW ISO 14 Rhyolite flake No PW ISO 15 Obsidian flake No PW ISO 16 Three obsidian flakes No PW ISO 19 Rhyolite flake No PW ISO 21 Chert biface fragment No PW ISO 22 Chert biface fragment No PW ISO 23 Quartzite flake No PW ISO 25 Rhyolite flake No PW ISO 30 Modified rhyolite flake No PW ISO 31 Rhyolite flake, rhyolite shatter and quartzite flake No PW ISO 35 Obsidian flake No PW ISO 41 Metate fragment No PW ISO 42 Mortar on large boulder No PW ISO 51 Obsidian flake No PW ISO 55 Bifacial mano fragment No PW ISO 56 Mano fragment No PW ISO 57 Metate No PW ISO 60 Rhyolite flake No PW ISO 61 Obsidian flake No PW ISO 62 Two rhyolite flakes No PW ISO 63 Obsidian flake No PW ISO 64 One chert biface fragment and two obsidian flakes No PWA ISO 2 Bedrock Mortar Yes PWA ISO 5 Chalcedony flake Yes PWA ISO 6 Chalcedony flake Yes PWA ISO 7 Chalcedony flake Yes PWA ISO 8 Rhyolite flake Yes

PW Site 3 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site consists of three small bedrock mortar milling stations (Features 1–3) located adjacent to a drainage. No portable artifacts were observed. The milling stations are oriented roughly in a northwest-southwest line and are distributed over an area measuring approximately 40 meters by 16 meters (about 131 feet by 52 feet). This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 4 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site consists of five schist boulders or areas of exposed bedrock that contain bedrock mortars (Features 1–5), and includes one possible granitic unifacial mano fragment. The mortars are arranged in an east-west orientation across a finger ridge and are distributed over an area measuring approximately 23 meters by 22 meters (about 75 feet by 72 feet). This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 6 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site consists of three ground stone artifacts: a portable schist mortar, a schist unifacial mano, and a bifacial schist metate. The site is located on a finger between Cottonwood Creek and a small unnamed seasonal drainage, and measures approximately 13 meters by 13 meters (about 43 feet by 43 feet). This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 7 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site is a sparse scatter of ground and flaked stone, including several ground stone fragments, one complete gneiss metate, one portable gneiss mortar, and one burnt bone fragment, distributed



over an area measuring approximately 125 meters by 50 meters (about 410 feet by 164 feet). Also observed on site was a concentration of approximately 25 rhyolite flakes and one obsidian flake. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 11 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site consists of a sparse flaked stone and ground stone scatter surrounding the remains of a hearth. The site measures approximately 30 meters by 30 meters (about 98 feet by 98 feet) and is located adjacent to a shallow drainage in an area of moderately thick juniper and scrub bushes. The hearth feature consists of six fire-affected ground stone fragments and approximately 10 pieces of fire-affected rock distributed over a 3-by-2-meter (about 10-by-7-foot) area. Artifacts not associated with the hearth include one portable mortar fragment, with a conical mortar; two well-weathered obsidian secondary flakes; a gneiss mano fragment; and a bifacial gneiss mano fragment. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 12 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site is a sparse scatter of ground stone and flaked stone artifacts that includes one obsidian Rose Spring projectile point fragment. The site measures approximately 50 meters by 15 meters (about 164 feet by 49 feet) and is located in an area of moderately dense juniper, buckwheat and grasses. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 22 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site is a sparse ground stone and flaked stone scatter measuring approximately 185 meters by 100 meters (about 607 feet by 328 feet); cultural constituents on site also include one flaked stone tool (a drill fragment) and one ceramic sherd. One feature, a rock concentration consisting of approximately 14 cobbles distributed over an area measuring approximately 1.5 by 2.0 meters (about 5 by 7 feet)was also recorded. The feature may represent the remains of a hearth, although no fire affected rocks were noted. The site is located on the northern edge of a sparse concentration of juniper and buckwheat. The site’s topography is dominated by a large mound, possibly created by a spring, which is covered by large junipers and measures approximately 3 meters (about 10 feet) high by 25 meters (about 82 feet) in diameter. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 23 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site is a sparse ground stone and flaked stone scatter measuring approximately 230 meters by 90 meters (about 755 feet by 295 feet). The site is located on a flat plateau in moderately dense juniper woodland; other vegetation on site includes California buckwheat, fiddleneck and grasses. The site includes a small, discrete concentration of ground stone and flaked stone artifacts located within the larger artifact scatter. Only one flaked stone tool, an obsidian projectile point tip, was found on site. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 24 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site consists of three projectile points and point fragments distributed in a 90-meter-by-27-meter (about 295-foot-by-89-foot) area. The site is located on a flat plateau in moderately dense juniper woodland; other vegetation on site includes California buckwheat, fiddleneck and grasses. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 25 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site is a sparse ground stone and flaked stone scatter measuring approximately 57 meters by 42 meters (about 187 feet by 138 feet). The site is located on a flat plateau in moderately dense juniper woodland; other vegetation on site includes California buckwheat, fiddleneck and grasses.



The site includes a small, discrete concentration of ground stone artifacts that may represent a hearth. Only one flaked stone tool, a Rose Spring corner notch projectile point was found on site. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PWA-1 (Newly Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Site) This site is a sparse obsidian flaked stone scatter measuring approximately 35 meters by 40 meters (about 115 feet by 131 feet). The site is located on a landform that slopes gently to the south, and a sheet wash channel passes south and west through the site. Vegetation on site is dominated by juniper bushes. The site includes an artifact concentration, measuring approximately 10 by 12 meters (about 33 feet by 39 feet), located within the larger artifact scatter. This site is the only prehistoric archeological site within the proposed project APE.

Historical Archaeological Sites and Isolates Sapphos Environmental, Inc. personnel recorded a total of 58 newly discovered or previously described historical archaeological resources, including 24 historical archaeological sites and 34 historical archaeological isolates, during the current field surveys. These include eight previously identified historical archaeological sites that were updated (CA-KER-3549H, -6937H, -7162H, -7183H, -7184H, -7185H, -7186H, and -7187H). Historical isolated finds are described in Table 4.5-2. As mentioned, isolated artifacts are not considered to be historical resources or unique archaeological resources for the purposes of CEQA, and therefore, the effects of the project on isolated artifacts is not considered to be significant. A description of the previously unrecorded and updated historical archaeological sites is provided below. Of these 24 historical archaeological sites, six (CA-KER-3549H, -7183H, -7187H, PWA-1H, -2H, and -3H) are within the APE. None of the newly discovered historical archaeological sites were formally evaluated for NRHP/CRHR eligibility during the current survey. However, all newly recorded historical archaeological sites were treated as potentially significant resources, and the project was designed to avoid these sites. In addition to the historical archaeological sites and isolates, six permanent buildings or structures were observed within the APE for cultural resources. Five of these residences were constructed within the last 45 years and do not convey significance as historical resources. One structure was evaluated for historical significance.

Table 4.5‐2. Newly Recorded Historical IsolatesIsolate Description Within APE

PW ISO 1H Can scatter No PW ISO 2H Tobacco can No PW ISO 3H Soda bottle No PW ISO 7H Oil can scatter No PW ISO 8H Rock feature No PW ISO 9H Pocket watch No PW ISO 17H Child’s wagon Yes PW ISO 18H Can scatter No PW ISO 20H Historical refuse scatter, including cans and glass fragments No PW ISO 24H Can scatter with amethyst glass No PW ISO 26H Whiskey bottle No PW ISO 27H Automobile headlight lens No PW ISO 34H Can scatter No PW ISO 36H Can scatter No PW ISO 39H Amethyst glass bottle base Yes PW ISO 43H Oil can scatter Yes PW ISO 44H Fuel can Yes



Table 4.5‐2. Newly Recorded Historical IsolatesIsolate Description Within APE

PW ISO 45H Can scatter with glass fragments Yes PW ISO 46H Canteen Yes PW ISO 47H Car body parts Yes PW ISO 49H Can scatter Yes PW ISO 50H Whiskey bottle No PW ISO 58H Can scatter with glass jar No PW ISO 59H Can scatter Yes PWA ISO 1H Historical glass scatter Yes PWA ISO 3H Historical glass scatter Yes PWA ISO 4H Abandoned 1950s automobile Yes PWA ISO 9H Historic scatter Yes PWA ISO 10H Historic scatter Yes PWA ISO 11H Can and glass scatter Yes PWA ISO 12H Can scatter Yes PWA ISO 13H Ceramic insulator Yes PWA ISO 14H Can scatter Yes PWA ISO 15H Can scatter Yes

CA-KER-3549H (Previously Recorded Historical Archaeological Site - Updated) This site is the Los Angeles Aqueduct, constructed between 1907 and 1913. The site was originally recorded in 1993 by Costello and Marvin. In 2006, Nilsson et al. conducted an archaeological inventory of the First and Second Los Angeles Aqueducts (Nilsson et al., 2006). The inventory considered the sites as part of a historical archaeological district related to the construction of the First Los Angeles Aqueduct that is linked historically by function, theme, physical development and plan; is physically distinct from its surroundings; and conveys a visual sense of a historic environment. The identified district was evaluated as significant under NRHP Criteria A, B, C, and D. The qualities of the First Los Angeles Aqueduct Historical Archaeological District that convey its eligibility include extant remnants of labor camps, construction camps, and division headquarters; historical artifact debris scatters; a corral; a levee-artifact scatter; and the First Los Angeles Aqueduct itself. Portions of the site within the current APE were visually inspected by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. in 2008 and 2009. Approximately 13 miles of the 113-mile Los Angeles Aqueduct corridor traverses the project area in a below-ground conduit capped by concrete. Portions of this site are within the proposed project APE.

CA-KER-6937H (Previously Recorded Historical Archaeological Site - Updated) This site was originally recorded in 2006 by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. during surveys conducted in support of the proposed PdV Wind Energy Project. This site is an accumulation of historical debris, including more than 80 steel food cans, cobalt-blue and amethyst glass fragments, and wire nails, bolts, and screws. A single 0.38-caliber pistol shell casing was found, marked: “U.M.C. 38 S&W SP.L.” This site is not within the proposed project APE.

CA-KER-7162H (Previously Recorded Historical Archaeological Site - Updated) This site represents the remains of West Antelope Station, a labor camp and staging area associated with the construction of the First Los Angeles Aqueduct between 1908 and 1913. This site was originally recorded in 2002 by URS Corporation during their systematic cultural resources inventory of both aqueducts. The site consists of six features, including an earthen berm, a chicken wire fence, a sign post, a rock alignment, fire rings, plumbing, and a small



concrete foundation. Fieldwork conducted on this site by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. during the current survey effort was limited to a confirmation and evaluation of the northwestern portion of the site boundary as defined by URS. This portion of the site was found to contain an earthen berm, a pair of vertical steel pipes that may represent a well, ceramic pipe fragments, cans, and glass fragments. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

CA-KER-7183H (Previously Recorded Historical Archaeological Site - Updated) This site was recorded in 2002 by URS Corporation This site is a historical artifact scatter measuring approximately 225 feet by 150 feet and located on an exposed flat on the south side of Rosamond Boulevard. The site consists of approximately 150 sanitary cans, historical ceramics, glass fragments, porcelain fragments, and remnants of a bed. This site is within the proposed project APE.

CA-KER-7184H (Previously Recorded Historical Archaeological Site - Updated) This site is an historical artifact scatter measuring approximately 40 feet by 40 feet and located on the north side of Rosamond Boulevard. The site consists of over 350 burned fragments of brown, blue, clear and green glass; 50 sanitary cans; historical ceramics; Christmas tree light bulbs; and other household objects. The site was recorded in 2002 by URS Corporation. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

CA-KER-7185H (Previously Recorded Historical Archaeological Site - Updated) This site is a sparse historical artifact scatter measuring approximately 350 feet by 300 feet and located on the north side of Rosamond Boulevard. The site consists of several cans, glass fragments, concrete fragments, car parts, milled wood fragments, and other household objects. The site was recorded in 2002 by URS Corporation. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

CA-KER-7186H (Previously Recorded Historical Archaeological Site - Updated) This site is an historical artifact scatter measuring approximately 200 feet by 200 feet and located along a small, north-south trending drainage. The site consists of over 50 sanitary cans, paint cans, stovepipe and chimney flashing, tar buckets, porcelain fragments, a ceramic light bulb fitting, and other household objects. The site was recorded in 2002 by URS Corporation. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

CA-KER-7187H (Previously Recorded Historical Archaeological Site - Updated) This site is a labor camp associated with the construction of the First Los Angeles Aqueduct (1908-1913). It was first recorded in 2002 by URS Corporation during their systematic cultural resources inventory of both aqueducts. Fieldwork conducted on this site by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. during the current survey effort was limited to a confirmation and evaluation of the site boundary as defined by URS. The site boundary was expanded in size, to 500 feet by 450 feet, based on the location of artifacts associated with the site. The site consists of seven features, including depressions and earthen building foundations, which may represent at least four structures. Cultural constituents observed on site include underground pipes, brick concentrations, glass, metal, cans and household objects. Portions of this site are within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 2H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is an historical debris scatter consisting primarily of sanitary cans, and including porcelain fragments, wire fragments, glass bottle fragments, a metal adhesive tape container, a butter knife, and other can types. A sparse artifact scatter extends south and east from a main



artifact concentration that measures approximately 8.0 feet by 6.0 feet. Can types are present on site include 19 sanitary food cans, five motor oil cans, two sardine cans, one transmission or brake fluid can, one tobacco can, and one shoe polish can. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 5H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) The site is an historical refuse scatter containing cans, glass fragments, porcelain fragments, a steel can opener, and various sizes of scrap metal. These artifacts were distributed within an area measuring approximately 33 feet by 17 feet. The site also contains a fire pit and rock concentration measuring approximately 7.0 feet by 5.0 feet. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 8H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is an historical refuse scatter containing various steel cans, an amethyst glass bottle, various amethyst and clear glass fragments, a metal hoop, and finished wood fragments. The artifacts are scattered among creosote scrub brush in an area measuring approximately 180 feet by 130 feet. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 9/H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is an historical refuse scatter and is composed of approximately 15 steel cans in several different configurations, including hole-in-cap cans, vent cans, sardine cans with lid keys, and a paint can with handle brackets. Also present are two amethyst glass fragments, an aqua glass fragment, and a spent CO² cartridge. Many of the artifacts are partially buried in sediment. Prehistoric artifacts noted on site include a secondary chert flake and a schist bifacial metate fragment. The historical artifacts are distributed over an area measuring 390 feet by 180 feet. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 10H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is an historical refuse scatter consisting of approximately 10 vent hole, hole-in-cap and sardine cans; a glass bottle; glass bottle fragments; and an electrical car or truck part. The main artifact concentration measures approximately 10 feet by 15 feet, and the remainder of the artifacts are distributed on either side of a drainage that runs east-to-west through the site. The site is near an intersection of two dirt roads and the Pacific Crest Trail, and shows evidence of being disturbed by construction activities, off-road vehicles and pedestrian traffic. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 13/H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is an historical refuse scatter measuring approximately 225 feet by 150 feet. The scatter includes porcelain and glass fragments, bottle fragments, wood fragments, amethyst glass fragments, electrical parts, and other household objects. One prehistoric artifact, a schist metate, was also observed on site. There are few cans or other food-related items, suggesting that this was not a camp or place where food was prepared, but instead is a small refuse dump, which contains several women’s related items. A small (about 2.0 feet by 2.0 feet) area of burned soil was seen on site, but no evidence of bone or other food material was noted. Also observed was a crude, J-shaped arrangement of small local cobbles. This feature appears too small for a wind break and too large for a cooking circle, and may be natural. This site is not within the proposed project APE.



PW Site 14H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site appears to be the remains of a small homestead. The site consists of a foundation or concrete slab with two small footings and a scatter of cans; metal debris; clear/brown/amethyst glass fragments; barrel hoops; chicken wire; wood debris; a steel and porcelain tea pot; oil and gas cans, etc. The site also includes a concentration of partially buried cinderblocks, a depression that may represent a privy or assay, and a rock concentration. The site is located at the intersection of two barbed wire fences, and may be associated with a property boundary. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 15H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is a sparse scatter of more than 30 cans, metal debris, and porcelain fragments. The site includes one feature, a concentration of broken concrete that appears to be the remains of a broken-up foundation. A well-trenched dirt road and barbed wire fence run through the site. This site may be associated with a homestead site located approximately ¼ mile to the south (PW Site 14H), and appears to be of the same age. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 16H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is a scatter of about 150 to 200 cans, fragments of scrap metal, wood fragments, barrel straps, and amethyst glass fragments. The cans are largely concentrated at the northwest end of the site. The main can concentration measures about 30 feet by 50 feet in area. About 90% of the cans are hole-in-cap type. The site includes a possible barrel strap fragment. Amethyst glass fragments include a rim fragment, probably from a drinking glass. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 17H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is an historical refuse scatter that may represent a homestead. The site consists of four loci distributed over an area measuring approximately 450 feet by 380 feet. Locus 1 is characterized by a large quantity of milled lumber that appears to be the remains of a wall or roof. Possible structural elements at Locus 1 also include a rock pile and mound that may represent a stove foundation or chimney. Locus 2 appears to include the remains of a chicken coop, which consists of milled lumber covered with chicken wire. Locus 3 is dominated by a scatter of 28 cans that include one tobacco can, hole-in-cap cans, sanitary cans, vent-hole cans, and spice cans. Clear and colored glass fragments were also observed. Locus 4 is also a can scatter, consisting of approximately 40 cans, including vent-hole cans, sanitary cans, and one condensed milk can. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 18/H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is a small scatter of historical debris that includes two obsidian flakes. Artifacts are confined largely to a small (10 by 10 foot) area, although some cans extend beyond the main scatter. A variety of artifact classes are present (cans, bottles, battery parts, clothing parts, etc.) suggesting that the site may have been a brief campsite or refuse dump. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PW Site 20H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is an historical refuse scatter measuring approximately 155 feet by 90 feet, containing vent-hole cans, hole-in-cap cans, amethyst glass, and brown glass fragments. The site is located within a moderately dense creosote scrub community. This site is not within the proposed project APE.



PW Site 21/H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is a probable homestead dating to 1954. The site consists of seven features and a high density of historical refuse (cans, glass fragments, lumber fragments, concrete fragments, scrap metal, etc.), and includes a prehistoric isolate consisting of one rhyolite interior flake. The features include a water well capped with a concrete slab; two structures showing concrete foundations; areas of mortared cinderblock; and piles of lumber, including a wall or floor section of framed tongue-in-groove lumber. Household objects (food containers, cosmetic containers, doorknob, etc.) indicate that the site included a residence. The foundation next to the well may have held a guzzler or trough. This foundation has a cavity below its concrete slab where subterranean pipes are visible, suggesting that water may have been piped to another structure. One of the concrete foundations is inscribed “Terry Taylor 3/30/54,” with a child’s handprint below. The north edge, uphill from the site, is marked by an east/west running berm, about 15 feet wide and 4.0 to 7.0 feet high. The berm runs for at least 700 feet east of the site and 300 feet west of the site and may have been intended to reduce flooding. Electrical insulators and a light switch observed on site indicate that the location had electricity. This site is not within the proposed project APE.

PWA-1H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site) This site is an historical refuse scatter measuring approximately 293 feet by 325 feet, containing bricks, steel cans, amethyst and milk glass fragments, whiteware ceramics and wire nails. The site is located within a moderately dense creosote scrub community. The site consists of four artifact concentrations. Concentration 1 is characterized by clear and colored glass fragments and whiteware ceramic sherds. Concentration 2 includes the remains of a wooden chair, lead bars, a battery probe, a piece of plate steel and clear and colored glass fragments. Concentration 3 contains amethyst glass fragments, wire nails and brick fragments. Concentration 4 is comprised of amethyst and milk glass fragments and porcelain and whiteware ceramic fragments. This site is within the proposed project APE.

PWA-2H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site)

This site consists of an early 20th century wood-cutting camp. A cluster of ten sanitary cans, each measuring 4 ½ inches by 3 inches was located in the northern portion of the site, and three juniper trees that exhibited hatchet cuts were located in the west. The total site area is approximately 30 meters (about 98 feet) east-west by 50 meters (about 164 feet) north-south, on a hillside sloping gently down to the west. The dominant vegetation in the area consists of juniper, Joshua trees, and creosote bushes. This site is within the proposed project APE.

PWA-3H (Newly Recorded Historical Archaeological Site)

This site consists of a sunken building foundation measuring approximately 3 meters by 4 meters (about 10 feet by 13 feet), and an associated glass and ceramic scatter in a 20-meter (about 66-foot) radius around the foundation. The foundation was excavated into the ground approximately 1 meter (about 3 feet), and is lined with concreted rounded rocks stacked five courses high, up to the ground surface. Presumably a wooden building was constructed on the foundation. The site is located in flat area dominated by creosote bushes, just to the east of 170th Street. This site is within the proposed project APE.

Built Environment Resource One building, an occupied residence, was observed within the area surveyed for cultural resources. The building is a 1 1/2–story residence in a vernacular style located adjacent to 170th



Street West in the northeast quarter of Section 14, Township 9 North, Range 15 West. It is not known to be associated with significant events or persons in local, State, or national history (NRHP/CRHR Criteria A/1 and B/2). It does not possess architectural distinction, represent the work of a master, or represent the only remaining example of its type from which significant data could be derived (NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3 and D/4). Therefore, the property does not qualify as a historical resource as defined by CEQA.

Potential for Unknown Buried Cultural Resources

The study area is located on two alluvial fan remnants on the piedmont of the southeastern front of the Tehachapi Mountains and a fan apron in the lower fan piedmont in western Antelope Valley, on the east and west side of Cottonwood Creek. Cottonwood Creek transects the project area in a southeast orientation, forms an inset fan between the two remnant fans, and a fan apron, or mouth fan, where it terminates in the basin floor. A sand sheet and small dunes cover a portion of the remnant fan. The fan remnants are composed of early Pleistocene nonmarine sediments and are partially mantled by recent Holocene dune sand. The inset fan and fan aprons below Cottonwood Creek and the remnant fans are of moderately recent Holocene deposition (Jennings and Strand, 1969).

Sensitivity for buried archaeological resources varies across the project area. Portions of remnant fan with surfaces absent of eolian deposits are of low sensitivity for buried cultural resources. These sediments were deposited in the early Pleistocene prior to when it is believed that humans occupied North America. Portions of the remnant fans covered by dune sand are moderately sensitive for buried cultural resources. Integrity of buried deposits would likely be good if any site exists on the early Pleistocene surface and is buried by recent sands. The inset fan formed by Cottonwood Creek is of much more recent origin and is moderately to highly sensitive for buried resources. However, due to the high energy of the deposits it is likely that sediments are constantly reworked and that any buried cultural remains are in secondary context. The fan apron where Cottonwood Creek opens onto the lower portion of the basin and the fan aprons below the remnant fans are moderately to highly sensitive for buried resources. Further, resources in these settings would have been capped by low energy deposits leaving cultural deposits in primary contexts. The Sapphos Environmental, Inc. survey has shown that an approximately 0.8 square mile area located in the eastern ½ of Section 8 and the western ½ of Section 9, Township 9 North, Range 15 West has a high sensitivity for prehistoric cultural resources. This determination is based on the high number of prehistoric sites and isolates encountered during the Phase I survey.

Existing Paleontological Resources Methods Used to Identify Paleontological Resources

The areas within the approximately 11,050-acre cultural resources study area with the potential to yield paleontological resources were assessed in relation to a three-tier probability analysis:

• High: Sedimentary geologic units and other geologic units that have yielded unique paleontological resources;

• Moderate: Older alluvial geologic units; and • Low to None: Younger alluvium and metamorphic and igneous geologic units.



As part of the paleontological assessment for the proposed project, literature searches for paleontological records were conducted at museums and institutions that house fossil collections within and/or near the cultural resources study area. These records are important in determining the paleontological sensitivity of the surficial rocks that may be exposed during ground disturbing activities resulting from construction of the project. Record searches were received from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles (McLeod, 2008) and the San Bernardino County Museum (Scott, 2008).

Results and Evaluation of Known Paleontological Resources

As mentioned, the cultural resources study area is characterized by surface exposures of three rock units: older Quaternary alluvium (Qc), deposited during the Pleistocene epoch between 1.8 million and 11,000 years (BP); recent Quaternary alluvium (Qal) deposited during the Holocene epoch between 11,000 years or less BP; and Quaternary dune sands (Qs) also deposited during the Holocene period (Scott, 2008).

Areas with High Potential Approximately 963 acres of elevated terrain in the south-central portion of the study area (Sections 15, 16, 17, and 22, Township 9 North, Range 15 West) contain surficial deposits that have a high potential to contain significant vertebrate fossils (Figure 4.5-2). These exposed rock units consist of older Quaternary alluvium (Qc) in the form of clay and silt sediments from the Pleistocene Epoch and are similar to sediments throughout the Mojave Desert that have consistently yielded significant fossil remains (Scott, 2008). Approximately 51 acres of this area of high potential to contain significant vertebrate fossils are located in the conceptual plan direct impact area.

Areas with Moderate Potential In contrast, approximately 4,759 acres of older Quaternary alluvium (Qc) deposits located in the western and northern portions of the study area are of a type that has a moderate potential to contain paleontological resources (Figure 4.5-2). While these deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils in their uppermost layers, deeper strata within the same geologic unit may contain significant fossils (McLeod, 2008). Approximately 633 acres of this area of moderate potential to contain significant vertebrate fossils are located in the conceptual plan direct impact area.

Areas with Low Potential The remaining 5,329 acres of the cultural resources study area— including an isolated area in the west-central portion of the study area, the Cottonwood Creek wash, and the entire eastern portion of the study area—consist of recent Quaternary deposits characterized by dune sand (Qs) and alluvium (Qal) that have a low potential for containing significant paleontological resources (Figure 4.5-2). Approximately 896 acres of this area of low potential to contain significant vertebrate fossils are located in the conceptual plan direct impact area.

December 2008

Figure 4.5-2

Paleontological Resource Sensitivity

Pacific Wind Energy ProjectDraft Environmental Impact Report


June 20104.5-24

Source: Sapphos, 2010.



4.5.3 Regulatory Setting State

California Environmental Quality Act

CEQA requires the assessment of a proposed project’s effects on cultural resources. Pursuant to CEQA, a “historical resource” is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR. In addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with State guidelines are also considered historic resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude a lead agency, as defined by CEQA, from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in California PRC Section 5024.1. CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a historical resource, or (2) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria:

• The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

• The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

• The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

California Register of Historical Resources

Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:

• Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

• Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

• Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.

• Criterion 4. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.



Furthermore, under PRC Section 4852(c), a cultural resource must retain integrity to be considered eligible for the CRHR. Specifically, it must retain sufficient character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and convey reasons of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to retention of such factors as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Cultural sites that have been affected by ground-disturbing activities, such as grazing and off-road vehicle use (both of which occur within the project site), often lack integrity because they have been directly damaged or removed from their original location, among other changes.

Typically, a prehistoric archaeological site in California is recommended eligible for listing in the CRHR based on its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion 4). Important information includes chronological markers such as projectile point styles or obsidian artifacts that can be subjected to dating methods or undisturbed deposits that retain their stratigraphic integrity. Sites such as these have the ability to address research questions.

California Historical Landmarks

California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value and that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at least one of the criteria listed below. The resource also must be approved for designation by the County Board of Supervisors (or the city or town council in whose jurisdiction it is located); be recommended by the SHRC; and be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The specific standards now in use were first applied in the designation of CHL #770. CHLs #770 and above are automatically listed in the CRHR.

To be eligible for designation as a landmark, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:

• It is the first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the State or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California);

• It is associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California; or

• It is a prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.

California Points of Historical Interest

California points of historical interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. Points of historical interest designated after December 1997 and recommended by the SHRC are also listed in the CRHR. No historic resource may be designated as both a landmark and a point. If a point is later granted status as a landmark, the point designation will be retired. In practice, the point designation program is most often used in localities that do not have a locally enacted cultural heritage or preservation ordinance.

To be eligible for designation as a point of historical interest, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:



• It is the first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geographic region (city or county);

• It is associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area; or

• It is a prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder.

Native American Heritage Commission

Section 5097.91 of the California PRC established the NAHC, whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Section 5097.98 of the PRC specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner.

California Public Records Act

Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 of the California Public Records Act were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism. Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.” Section 6254.10 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports, maintained by, or in the possession of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the NAHC, another State agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a Native American tribe and a State or local agency.”

Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050 and 7052

Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside of a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbance must cease and the county coroner must be notified. Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.

California Penal Code, Section 622.5

The California Penal Code, Section 622.5, provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands, but specifically excludes the landowner.

Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5

Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5, defines as a misdemeanor the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands.



Local Kern County General Plan Chapter 1. Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element

1.10.3. Archaeological, Paleontological, Cultural, and Historical Preservation

Policies

• Policy 25. The County will promote the preservation of cultural and historic resources that provide ties with the past and constitute a heritage value to residents and visitors.

Implementation Measures

• Implementation Measure K. Coordinate with the California State University, Bakersfield’s Archaeology Inventory Center.

• Implementation Measure L. The County shall address archaeological and historical resources for discretionary projects in accordance with CEQA.

• Implementation Measure M. In areas of known paleontological resources, the County should address the preservation of these resources where feasible.

• Implementation Measure N. The County shall develop a list of Native American organizations and individuals who desire to be notified of proposed discretionary projects. This notification will be accomplished through the established procedures for discretionary projects and CEQA documents.

• Implementation Measure O. On a project-specific basis, the County Planning Department shall evaluate the necessity for the involvement of a qualified Native American monitor for grading or other construction activities on discretionary projects that are subject to a CEQA document.

Kern County Zoning Ordinance (Title 19 of the Ordinance Code) The Wind Energy (WE) Combining District (Chapter 19.64) contains development standards and conditions (Section 19.64.140) that would be applicable to the siting and operation of wind turbine generators (WTGs). The following provisions apply to cultural resources issues related to the proposed project.

• 19.64.140(H): All wind projects, including wind generators and towers, shall comply with all applicable County, State, and federal laws, ordinances and regulations.

4.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Methodology

To evaluate the project’s potential effects on significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted Phase I characterization and evaluation of the project site, which included a literature review, Native American consultation, and intensive field surveys for 100 percent of the project APE.

Thresholds of Significance

The Kern County CEQA Implementation Document and Kern County Environmental Checklist state that a project would normally be considered to have a significant impact if it would:

• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;



• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;

• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or

• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Section 21083.2(g) of CEQA further defines “unique archaeological resource” for purposes of determination as to whether a project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. As used in this section “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;

• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available of its type; or

• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

CEQA does not define a unique paleontological resource but for purposes of this EIR, a paleontological resource or site is considered “unique” where it meets any of the following criteria:

• It is the best example of its kind locally or regionally;

• Illustrates a geologic principle;

• Provides a critical piece of paleobiological data;

• Encompasses any part of a “type locality” of a fossil or formation;

• Contains a unique or particularly unusual assemblage of fossils;

• Occupies a unique position stratigraphically; and/or

• Occupies a unique position, proximally, distally or laterally within a formation’s extent or distribution.

According to State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, 15064.5, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (CCR Title 14, 15064.5(b)). The guidelines further state that a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historic resource would be materially impaired. Actions that would materially impair the significance of a historical resource are any actions that would demolish or adversely alter those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and qualify it for inclusion in the CRHR or in a local register or survey that meet the requirements of PRC Sections 5020.1(k) and 5024.1(g).



Project Impacts

Impact 4.5‐1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical or Archaeological Resource as Defined in Section 15064.5

A cultural resources assessment of the proposed project area has demonstrated that the proposed project area contains sensitive prehistoric and historical archaeological resources. Further, archaeological sites recorded within the project could have buried components that may yield significant data about the nature of human occupation of the area. As well, important archaeological deposits with no surface expression may be buried beneath deep alluvial sediments.

Cultural resource inventories were conducted within the proposed project area in 2009 and 2010 (Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2009 and 2010a). The surveys have resulted in the discovery of several new archaeological sites and confirmed the presence of previously recorded resources. As described above, numerous isolates were also identified in the project site, but because isolates are not considered to be significant cultural resources, project impacts on these artifacts would be less than significant.

Based on these findings, the project’s proposed construction of wind turbine generators (WTGs), as well as of temporary and permanent supporting facilities could affect cultural resources within the project APE. The record search and Phase I survey identified one prehistoric archaeological site (PWA-1), five historical archaeological sites (CA-KER-7183H, CA-KER-7187H, PWA-1H, PWA-2H, and PWA-3H), and the First Los Angeles Aqueduct (CA-KER-3549H) that intersect the APE. These seven resources are located entirely or partially within the APE, which includes areas that would be directly affected by proposed project elements as located in the conceptual site plan and buffers of 60 feet around project elements. With the exception of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, none of the resources within the project APE have been evaluated for CRHR eligibility.

The First Los Angeles Aqueduct (CA-KER-3549H) is considered to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a contributing element to the proposed First Los Angeles Aqueduct Historical Archaeological District. The Aqueduct is therefore also considered to be eligible for the CRHR. Any planned overhead transmission line crossings of the aqueduct would span the entire Los Angeles Department of Water and Power easement, meeting the required electrical design criteria for spans and line sag. As a result, it is anticipated that no impact would occur as the lines would not touch the surface of the site at any time, and any aqueduct crossings would occur on existing bridges.

Of the remaining six resources within the project APE, one is a prehistoric lithic scatter (PWA-1), one is a labor camp associated with the construction of the First Los Angeles Aqueduct (CA-KER-7187H), three are historical refuse scatters (CA-KER-7183H, PWA-1H, and PWA-2H), and one is the foundation of a building. Project elements and activities in the area of these sites consist of overhead transmission lines and use of new and existing roads. The sites will be spanned by the proposed overhead transmission lines and protected during all ground-disturbing activities by installing exclusion fencing around the sites. Project elements will be micro-sited to avoid historical and archaeological resource sites within a 60-foot buffer.



The project applicant treated previously recorded and newly identified historical and archaeological sites as potentially eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The project proponent has designed the project to avoid or minimize impacts on previously recorded and newly identified (during field surveys for this project) cultural resources to the maximum extent practicable. Evaluation of the conceptual site plan demonstrated that it is feasible to avoid all known cultural resource sites. In the unanticipated event that a subsurface site that does not have surface exposure is encountered during construction, mitigation measures are provided to salvage and record that site in a manner such that impacts would be reduced, but would remain significant. As well, if individual project elements cannot be redesigned to avoid impacts to cultural resources, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to ensure that significant cultural resources would be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Mitigation measures would also be implemented to protect significant cultural resources that are outside direct impact areas (i.e., grading for WTG foundations/tower pads, roads, and ancillary facilities), but within 60 feet of those direct impacts to ensure that buried deposits and known features are not inadvertently impacted. The following mitigation measures would also implement alternative forms of site treatment authorized in the event that avoidance is not possible. There is also potential to encounter buried significant archaeological resources (including human remains) that were not previously identified during archaeological surveys. This impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation would be required.

Given the scope of the project’s proposed construction of WTGs, as well as of temporary and permanent supporting facilities within the proposed project area, even with full implementation of the preventative measures outlined above, it is unlikely that the project’s impacts to cultural resources can be avoided or fully mitigated. MM 4.5-1 through MM 4.5.10 would reduce significant impacts to archaeological resources overall.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.5-1 Avoidance of cultural resource sites is the preferred treatment measure, and all impacts to sites that are potentially eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources identified in the preliminary cultural resource inventories shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible by project redesign. In addition, the project shall, to the greatest extent possible, avoid the siting of wind turbine generators and temporary and permanent support facilities within 60 feet of those sites.

MM 4.5-2 The project proponent shall prepare a Cultural Resources Management Plan that will detail how all cultural resources within the proposed project will be avoided or treated. The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall: (i) be prepared by a County-approved archaeologist, at the sole expense of the project proponent; and (ii) shall be submitted to and approved by the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department prior to issuance of the building permit for the project.

The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall include:

a. Detailed plan for avoiding and protecting resources that are eligible or potentially eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (in accordance with MM 4.5-1, above).

b. Documentation of coordination with Native Americans.



The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall include detailed provisions to demonstrate that the project proponent, in coordination with the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, consulted with all tribes and individuals listed by the Native American Heritage Commission who may have concerns about the project regarding treatment of all prehistoric archaeological sites identified at any time during surveys for this Environmental Impact Report or surveys for areas beyond what was surveyed for this Environmental Impact Report (MM 4.5-3, below). Consultation shall continue throughout the course of planning and construction of the project. The project proponent, at its sole expense, shall facilitate agreements regarding site treatment between Native Americans and the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department that are approved by the County. The plan shall include provisions for full documentation of the consultation process, including records of all contacts and meetings.

c. Subsurface and Evaluative Testing Plan.

If it is determined that a project element requiring ground disturbance cannot be located at least 60 feet from the mapped boundaries of an archaeological site, then subsurface testing (Phase II evaluation) shall be conducted by employing a small number of shovel test units. These shovel test units would be used to ensure that sufficient data are collected to characterize the nature and extent of previous disturbance and the density, diversity and horizontal and vertical distribution of cultural materials within areas needed for grading, trenching and other ground disturbance and shall verify whether or not the site would be affected by the disturbance.

Where ground disturbance would occur within 60 feet, some sites would require additional excavations for the purpose of evaluative testing in order to make a more definitive determination of California Register of Historical Resources eligibility. Evaluative testing shall be conducted to evaluate the nature, extent, and significance of the cultural resources. Evaluative testing shall be designed to record horizontal extent, depth of the cultural matrix, and degree of internal stratification. Because subsurface testing, like any form of site excavation, is destructive it shall be conducted only when necessary and in moderation. This evaluation program shall involve the following:

• A detailed testing plan that includes a research design (from which to evaluate California Register of Historical Resources eligibility); excavation plan with rationale for sample size and placement; and discussion of special studies/ analyses that may be required—to be reviewed and approved by the County before implementation.

• Controlled hand excavation and surface collection of a representative sample of the site deposit as detailed in the approved testing plan.

• A detailed analysis of the material recovered. • An assessment of cultural resource data potentials, integrity, and

eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.



• Preparation of a final report with recommendations for impact mitigation if necessary.

• Curation of all artifacts and data from testing evaluations (see MM 4.5-10, below).

d. Programmatic Data Recovery Plan.

Resources found to be not significant shall not require mitigation. However, site-specific testing results may indicate that additional data recovery (Phase III) investigations are necessary to mitigate project impacts adequately where avoidance would not completely preclude direct impacts to significant deposits. These investigations shall be funded wholly by the project proponent, and may include more intensive analysis of materials excavated during testing, as well as additional excavations to recover, analyze and document a representative sample of the deposits. To assist the development of site-specific data recovery investigations, the California Resources Management Plan shall include a Programmatic Data Recovery Plan that identifies, among other topics, standard procedures and guidelines for determining sampling intensity, and data recovery methods based on testing results. The Data Recovery Plan shall also address research issues that would be investigated. Further the Data Recovery Plan shall consider the project’s grading plan, utility plan, irrigation and landscaping plan, and any other plan that delineates areas of project disturbance in determining portions of a significant site that would be investigated. The Data Recovery Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department before initiation of data recovery fieldwork.

MM 4.5-3 If the project proponent revises the location of proposed facilities and ground-disturbing activities that affect areas beyond the area surveyed for this Environmental Impact Report, the project proponent shall:

a. Not conduct work in those areas until approval has been received from Kern County Planning and Community Development Department;

b. Provide for a qualified archaeologist to conduct a supplemental Phase I evaluation (records search and intensive pedestrian surveys) of all new areas that would be affected (i.e., within the revised area of impact);

c. Provide a supplemental technical report to Kern County Planning and Community Development Department discussing the supplemental Phase I evaluation and potential impacts and avoidance and minimization measures;

d. Based on the results of the supplemental Phase I evaluation, ensure that the qualified archeologist provides documentation to Kern County Planning and Community Development Department verifying that all newly identified sites would be avoided and that all ground-disturbing activities would occur at least 60 feet away;

e. If the revised location of facilities avoids newly identified sites but ground-disturbing activities are located within 60 feet of the sites, provide for a qualified archeologist to monitor during initial ground-disturbing



activities (MM 4.5-5, below), as well as exclusionary fencing (MM 4.5-4, below); and

f. If the revised location of facilities impacts newly identified sites (e.g., sites could not be avoided), consult with the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department regarding further requirements, possibly including a Phase II evaluation, data recovery, and additional mitigation.

MM 4.5-4 The project proponent shall install exclusion fencing around the archaeological sites that are located within 60 feet of project facilities and planned ground-disturbing activities. Verification of completion shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department.

MM 4.5-5 The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall detail a plan for monitoring sensitive archaeological locations during ground-disturbing project activities. The plan shall specify that the project proponent will provide for a qualified archeologist to monitor earthmoving activities in areas within 60 feet of the identified archaeological sites, or in areas that have been determined to have a high sensitivity for prehistoric resources. The archaeologist shall be authorized to halt construction, if necessary, in the immediate area where buried cultural resources are encountered. The monitor shall maintain a daily log of activities and shall submit a final monitoring report, to California Environmental Quality Act standards, describing the results of cultural resources monitoring efforts associated with the Project, within 90 days of completion of the archaeological monitoring, to Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, the project proponent, the Museum of Anthropology, and the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield.

MM 4.5-6 Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit the project proponent shall provide Kern County Planning and Community Development Department with documentation that a qualified archeologist has reviewed the final proposed wind energy development scenario and conduct a spatial analysis in geographic information systems to verify that:

a. All facilities and planned ground-disturbing activities would occur within areas that have been intensively surveyed and documented; and

b. Provisions have been made for avoiding and protecting any sites that are eligible or potentially eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources that have not been treated using data recovery excavations under Mitigation Measure 4.5-2.

MM 4.5-7 The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall require that a workshop be held to brief all construction workers and supervisors on monitor roles, responsibilities, and authority; restricted areas and approved vehicle corridors; the types of artifacts that may be encountered; penalties for unauthorized collection of artifacts; and the need to temporarily redirect work away from the location of any unanticipated discovery until it is recorded and adequately documented and treated. The names of all personnel who attend the training shall be recorded and workers shall be issued hardhat stickers indicating they have received the workshop training. The workshop shall be videotaped or digitally recorded on Digital Video Discs or other similar media in order to train additional personnel who may join the construction



project in the future. Construction workers shall not be permitted to operate equipment within construction zones unless they have attended the workshop or viewed the presentation and are wearing hardhats with the required sticker.

MM 4.5-8 The project proponent shall minimize or avoid impacts to potentially significant prehistoric and historical resources discovered during construction by developing and implementing an Unanticipated Discovery Protocol as part of the Cultural Resources Management Plan. The Unanticipated Discovery Protocol shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the start of grading or construction and shall include discussion of the following:

a. Specific wording that if evidence of archeological resources (e.g., chipped or ground stone, historical debris, building foundations, or human bone) is identified during excavation, all work within 60 feet of the discovery site shall stop until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find;

b. Notification requirements, including immediate notification by the project proponent to a qualified archeologist and to Kern County Planning and Community Development Department;

c. Consultation with the Kern County Planning and Community Develop-ment Department, the qualified archaeologist, Native American representatives (if appropriate) and the project proponent to determine whether the discovered resource can be avoided and, if impacts have not occurred, work can continue. If it is determined that the resource has been impacted and an assessment of its significance is required:

• A qualified archaeologist shall develop appropriate treatment measures for the discovered and impacted resource in consultation with Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, Native American tribes, the Office of Historic Preservation, and other appropriate agencies; and

• Work will not resume until permission is received from Kern County.

MM 4.5-9 All plans shall be prepared in a manner consistent with professional standards (e.g., California Office of Historic Preservation’s Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs) and submitted to the County for review and approval prior to implementation. Further, all cultural resource investigations shall be documented in high quality technical reports that meet professional standards (e.g., California Office of Historic Preservation’s Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines). Reports shall be made available to professional archaeologists and (without confidential site location information) to the interested public.

MM 4.5-10 The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall state that archaeological collections, final reports, field notes, and other standard documentation collected during project implementation shall be permanently curated at a facility in the County that meets Guidelines for the Curation of Archeological Collections (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1993).



Level of Significance after Mitigation

Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.5‐2: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature

There is a potential for encountering unique paleontological resources within the project site during ground-disturbing construction activities, including grubbing, grading, and excavation. Potential adverse impacts on these resources include, but are not limited to, being directly impacted and destroyed by construction equipment and project-related vehicles, exposure of alluvium during construction that may subject any potentially fossil-bearing units to increased weathering and erosion, unauthorized collection of fossils by project personnel (as well as amateur and commercial collectors who would have greater access to the area), and vandalism.

Construction, operation, and maintenance activities in Sections 25 and 26 in Township 10 North, Range 15 West; and Sections 1, 12, and 13, portions of Sections 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, and 22, and portions of Sections 2, 3, 4, and 11 adjacent to Cottonwood Creek, in Township 9 North, Range 15 West of the USGS 7.5-minute series Tylerhorse Canyon topographic quadrangle, which have little to no potential to yield significant paleontological resources, would not be expected to impact unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features.

However, the remainder of the proposed project area, including portions of Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 22, in Township 9 North, Range 15 West of the USGS 7.5-minute series Tylerhorse Canyon topographic quadrangle, have a moderate to high potential to contain significant vertebrate fossils. Construction, operation, and maintenance in these deposits could impact unique paleontological resources. This impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation is required (see Figure 4.5-2).

Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-11 The project proponent shall retain a qualified paleontologist to prepare a

Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan for implementation during construction. The Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the start of grading or construction and shall include the following:

a. Procedures for the discovery, recovery, and salvage of paleontological resources encountered during construction, if any, in accordance with standards for recovery established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology;

b. Identification and mapping of specific areas of high and moderate sensitivity that will be monitored during construction;

c. Verification that the project proponent has an agreement with a recognized museum repository (e.g., the Buena Vista Museum of Natural History), for the disposition of recovered fossils and that the fossils shall be prepared prior to submittal to the repository as required by the repository (e.g., prepared, analyzed at a laboratory, curated, or cataloged); and



d. Description of monitoring reports that will be prepared, which shall include daily logs and a final monitoring report with an itemized list of specimens found to be submitted to Kern County Planning and Community Development Department, the project proponent, the Buena Vista Museum of Natural History, and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County within 90 days of the completion of monitoring.

MM 4.5-12 The project proponent shall provide for a qualified paleontologist to provide construction personnel with training on implementation of the Paleontological Resource Mitigation Plan and specifically procedures to be followed in the event that a fossil site or fossil occurrence is encountered during construction. An information package shall be provided for construction personnel not present at the initial preconstruction briefing.

Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant.

Impact 4.5‐3: Disturb any Human Remains, Including those Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries

Buried human remains that were not identified during field surveys could be inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities, which could result in damage to these human remains.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.5-13 The Cultural Resources Management Plan shall specify standard procedures for recording and treating human remains in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and guidelines. In-place preservation and protection from further disturbance shall always be the preferred approach. If human remains are discovered, work in the immediate vicinity shall stop until the Kern County coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are those of a Native American, the following would apply:

a. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission.

b. If discovered human remains are determined to be Native American remains, and are released by the coroner, these remains shall be left in situ and covered by fabric or other temporary barriers.

c. The human remains shall be protected until Kern County and the Native American Heritage Commission come to a decision on the final disposition of the remains.

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052).

Level of Significance after Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant.



Cumulative Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Cumulative Setting

The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to cultural and paleontological resources includes a six-mile radius from the project site. Analysis of cumulative impacts takes into consideration the entirety of impacts that the projects, zone changes, and general plans discussed in Section 3.11 (Cumulative Projects) would have on cultural resources. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because the archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources within this radius are expected to be similar to those in the project area because of their proximity; similar environments, landforms, and hydrology would result in similar land-use—and thus, site types. Similar geology within this vicinity would likely yield fossils of similar sensitivity and quantity.

Impact 4.5‐4: Contribute to Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts

With regard to impacts to significant cultural resources, the project has the potential to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts within the region. The project would have impacts on archaeological sites. Through implementation of MM 4.5-1, direct impacts to known archaeological sites would be avoided entirely, if feasible. If a significant archaeological resource cannot be avoided, MM 4.5-2 would ensure that significant impacts are reduced by testing or data-recovery. Because there is potential for unanticipated and previously unidentified cultural resources, the project would implement MM 4.5-5 to monitor construction and MM 4.5-8 to treat newly discovered sites, thus reducing the project impacts. Nonetheless, impacts would remain significant.

In addition, the other projects identified in Section 3.11 (Cumulative Projects) would also be expected to have mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts on archeological resources, but impacts could remain significant even after mitigation. Federally licensed projects, such as the PdV Wind Energy Project, Antelope Transmission Project, and the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, would require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to consider and resolve adverse effects to significant cultural resources. Likewise, compliance with CEQA for all projects would be expected to reduce impacts on archaeological resources, but impacts could remain significant. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would have the potential to combine with impacts from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a cumulative impact to historic and archaeological resources.

With regard to impacts to unique paleontological resources, the project would not contribute significantly to cumulative impacts within the region. Although significant fossils may be discovered during excavation for construction, through implementation of MM 4.5-10 through MM 4.5-12, direct impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Paleontological resources are generally not considered subject to cumulative impacts because they are localized and site-specific and are either individually impacted in a way that changes the significance of the resource or are avoided. In addition, the other projects identified in Section 3.11 (Cumulative Projects) would also be expected to reduce potential impacts on paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level through avoidance or mitigation and, therefore, not contribute to a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, impacts of



the proposed project would not have the potential to combine with impacts from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a cumulative impact to paleontological resources.

With regard to disturbance of human remains, the project could contribute significantly to cumulative impacts within the region. Although no human remains have been identified within the proposed project area, to date, there is potential for their discovery during project construction. If human remains were to be discovered during construction, MM 4.5-13 would ensure that the remains are treated in accordance with the California Public Resources Code, but would still represent a significant unmitigable impact. The potential impacts of the other projects identified in Section 3.11 (Cumulative Projects) would also be expected to be reduced by compliance with Public Resources Codes but could be significant based on site-specific issues. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would have the potential to combine with impacts from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects to result in a cumulative impact to human remains.

Mitigation Measures

Implement MM 4.5-1, MM 4.5-2, MM 4.5-5, MM 4.5-8 and MM 4.5-10 through MM 4.5-13.

Level of Significance after Mitigation

Cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Cultural Resources 4.5 - kerncounty.com I/4.5... · cultural surveys of the project site, analyzes...

Documents

Transcript of Cultural Resources 4.5 - kerncounty.com I/4.5... · cultural surveys of the project site, analyzes...