Chapters 1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Chapter 5
An archaeological monitor, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines, would be
present during ground-disturbing activities in areas of sensitivity for archaeological
resources. These areas include any dry section within the Refuge, as well as previously
undisturbed wetland areas and any areas located in proximity to previously identified sites
(e.g., CA-ORA-1463, CA-ORA-1455, P-30-001503, P-30-001504) whether they occur on the
Refuge or on the adjacent NWS.
If any cultural resources are discovered during excavation, all earthwork on the site would be
halted and the Regional Historic Preservation Officer would be contacted to review the materials
and recommend a treatment that is consistent with applicable laws and policies. The treatment
plan would likely require the boundaries of the site to be defined before excavation can be
reinitiated in an area well away from the discovered resource. The site would also be recorded and
evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. Once this work is completed, additional measures may be
required depending upon the results of the eligibility determination. If any site is encountered
that is determined to be eligible to the NRHP, the Service would consult with SHPO, federally
recognized Tribes, and interested parties. Implementation of the procedures described above is
expected to avoid adverse effects to cultural resources.
To identify and preserve traditional cultural properties and sacred sites and to determine the level
of confidentiality necessary to protect them, the Refuge would work with interested tribal groups
to establish government-to-government relationships that would ensure meaningful consultation
with tribal governments during the planning phase of projects. The Service would also work with
interested tribal groups to create a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the
inadvertent discovery clause of NAGPRA. Development of this MOU would involve identifying the
Native American Tribes, Groups, and direct lineal descendants that may be affiliated with these
Refuge lands, initiating consultation with the affiliated parties, developing procedures to follow for
intentional and inadvertent discoveries, and identifying the persons to contact for the purposes of
NAGPRA.
Public Use
The effects of implementing the public use proposals in Alternative B would be the same as those
described under Alternative A.
5.6.3 Alternative C (Proposed Action) – Optimize Upland/Wetland Restoration, Improve
Opportunities for Wildlife Observation
Wildlife and Habitat Management
Like Alternative B, Alternative C proposes habitat restoration for various locations within the
Refuge. The measures described in Alternative B would also be implemented under Alternative C;
therefore, with the implementation of these measures, no significant adverse effects to cultural
resources as a result of habitat restoration are anticipated.
The only other wildlife and habitat management action proposed under Alternative C that could
have an effect on cultural resources is the proposal to remove the drop tower. If the tower is still
standing after 2014, it will have been in place for 50 years and would be required to be evaluated
for listing on the NRHP prior to formally proposing its removal. If the structure is determined to
be eligible to the NRHP, plans to demolish the structure would have to be assessed for potential
effects to the historic property. Because the proposal calls for the removal of the structure, if it is
deemed eligible to the NRHP, mitigation must be developed and stipulated in a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Other
5-70 Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge