|
|
CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Within this section, the environmental settings and protocols for dealing with cultural and historical resources are defined. The archaeological and ethnographic backgrounds provide information about the Native American peoples and prehistoric activities of the area. The historic background section summarizes the various land uses along the creeks over time. The background was prepared by Archaeological Resource Management and recommendations for cultural resources were provided by Basin Research Associates.
Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, districts and objects; standing historic structures, buildings, districts and objects; and locations of important historic events or sites of traditional/cultural importance to various groups. The analysis of cultural resources can provide valuable information on the cultural heritage of both local and regional populations. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires review to determine if a project will have a significant effect on archaeological sites or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic group eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (CEQA Guidelines).
All channels within the District that are part of the proposed project should be considered as within area that have some cultural significance because many of the settlements in prehistoric and historic times were located adjacent to waterways or water sources. These channels have the potential to be significantly impacted as a result of the proposed project. District policies will require the preparation of an archival search for each work site that will or has the potential to disturb previously undisturbed native soil. If the archival search determines that a work site is within or adjacent to a recorded and/or potential cultural resource, a field survey will be conducted to determine the presence/absence of cultural materials and the probability of exposing significant subsurface archaeological resources during construction. Site specific recommendations for additional archaeological research and/or mitigation will be prepared and implemented as required.
1. Environmental Setting
Prehistoric groups in Santa Clara Valley had access to a number of different micro-environments. These included the riparian resources found along the fresh water streams and at spring, the bayshore including marshes and mudflats, the resources of the inland areas such as the alluvial plains between the Coyote Creek and Guadalupe River, and the foothills. Plant and animal life was diverse with the plains and foothills providing faunal and floral resources for both food and industry including small mammals, deer, elk, antelope, grasses and oak woodlands (Cartier, Laffey, Wizorek and Detlefs 1994). The Santa Cruz Mountains to the west provided a mixed redwood forest environment which supported small mammal and deer populations. The riparian forest areas provided plant foods and basket making materials as well as mammal, shellfish, and fish resources (Bocek and Reese 1992).
a. Prehistoric Background
Native American occupation and use of the Santa Clara Valley appears to extend 5000 to 7000 years and may be longer. Archaeological information suggests an increase in the prehistoric population over time with an increasing focus on permanent settlements with large populations in later periods. This change from hunter-collectors to an increased sedentary lifestyle is due to more efficient resource procurement but with a focus on staple food exploitation, the increased ability to store food at village locations, and the development of increasing complex social and political systems including long-distance trade networks.
Prehistoric site types recorded in the Santa Clara Valley consist of lithic scatters, quarries, habitation sites including main villages, bedrock mortars or other milling feature sites, petroglyph sites, and isolated burial sites (Elsasser 1986). Numerous aboriginal habitation mounds were recorded by Nels C. Nelson (1909, ca. 1910) during his survey of the periphery of the entire San Francisco Bay region suggesting a high population density and intensive use.
Archaeological research in the Santa Clara Valley and central California has been interpreted using several chronological schemes based on stratigraphic differences and cultural traits. A three-part sequence of cultural development over time proposed by Lillard et al. (1939) has usually been used to document local and regional cultural change in prehistoric central California including the study area although other researchers have proposed local chronologies (see Allen et al. 1999 for a South Bay chronology proposed by Hylkema). This classification scheme, using Early, Middle and Late "horizons" to designate both chronological periods and social change, was developed by archaeologists to explain local and regional cultural change from about 4,500 years ago to the time of European contact (see Lillard et al., 1939 and Beardsley 1948, 1954).
Moratto (1984) suggests that the Early Horizon dated to ca. 4,500 to 3,500/3,000 years ago with the Middle Horizon dating to ca. 3,500 to 1,500 years ago and the Late Horizon dating to ca. 1,500 to 250 years ago. The Early Horizon is the most poorly known of the period with relatively few sites known or investigated. Early Horizon traits include hunting, fishing, use of milling stones to process plant foods, use of a throwing board and spear ("atlatl"), relative absence of culturally affected soils (midden) at occupation sites, and elaborate burials with numerous grave offerings.
Middle Horizon sites are more common and usually have deep stratified deposits that contain large quantities of ash, charcoal, fire-altered rocks, and fish, bird and mammal bones. Significant numbers of mortars and pestles signal a shift to plant foods from reliance on hunted animal foods. Middle Horizon peoples generally buried their dead in a fetal position and only small numbers of graves contain artifacts (and these are most often utilitarian). Increased violence is suggested by the number of burials with projectile points embedded in the bones or with other marks of violence.
The Late Horizon emerged from the Middle Horizon with continued use of many early traits and the introduction of several new traits. Late Horizon sites are the most common and are noted for their greasy soils (midden) mixed with bone and fire-altered rocks. The use of the bow-and-arrow, fetal-position burials, deliberately damaged ("killed") grave offerings and occasional cremation of the dead are the best known traits of this horizon.
Another scheme proposed by Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984) is also used by archaeologists (see Table IV-E-1) while Hylkema (Allen et al. 1999) has presented a four-period chronological framework for the Northern Santa Clara Valley/Southern San Francisco Bay region through a synthesis of previous research (see Table IV-E-2). General overviews and perspectives on the regional prehistory including chronological sequences can be found in C. King (1978a), Moratto (1984), Elsasser (1986) and Allen et al. (1999).
Table IV-E-1
The Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984) Model of Cultural Periods in California
| Period | Description |
| Pre-Archaic Period 11,500-9,000 B.C. |
Pre-Archaic populations were small and their subsistence included big game hunting of now extinct mammoth and mastodon. Research indicates that the Pre-Archaic economies were based on a wide-ranging hunting and gathering strategy, dependent to a large extent on local lake-marsh or lacustrine habitats. |
| Early to Middle Archaic Period 9,000-4,000 B.C. | During the Early and Middle Archaic periods, prehistoric cultures began to put less emphasis on large-game hunting. Subsistence economies probably diversified somewhat, and Archaic era people may have started using such ecological zones as the coast littoral more intensively than before. Advances in technology (milling stones) indicate that new food processing methods became important, enabling more efficient use of certain plant foods, including grains and plants with hard seeds. |
| Late Archaic Period 4,000-2,000 B.C. |
An important technological advance was the discovery of a tannin-removal process for the abundant and nutritious acorns. Prehistoric trade networks developed and diversified, bringing raw materials and finished goods from one region to another. Resource exploitation, as during the Early and Middle Archaic, was generally seasonal. Bands moved between established locations within a clearly defined/defended territory, scheduling resource harvests according to their availability. Clustering of food resources along the shores of large lakes or the banks of major fish-producing rivers allowed for larger seasonal population aggregates. Dispersed resources, such as large and small game, during the winter prompted small family groups to disperse across the landscape for more efficient food harvesting. The spear thrower (atlatl) may have been introduced or increased in importance, accounting for a change in projectile point styles from the Western Stemmed to the Pinto and Humboldt series. Seed grinding increased in importance. |
| Early and Middle Pacific Periods 2,000 B.C.-A.D. 500 | The Pacific Period is marked by the advent of acorn meal as the most important staple food. Increasing population densities made it desirable and necessary for Indian populations to produce more food from available land and to seek more dependable food supplies. The increasing use of seed grinding and acorn leaching allowed for the exploitation of more dependable food resources; increased use of previously neglected ecological zones (the middle and high Sierran elevations) may also have been part of this trend. |
| Late Pacific Period A.D. 500-1400 |
Around A.D. 500 -- 600, a cultural watershed was triggered by the introduction of the bow and arrow, which replaced the spear thrower and dart as the hunting tool/weapon of choice. The most useful time markers for this period tend to be small projectile points/arrow tips. Another trend is the marked shift from portable manos/metates to bedrock mortars/pestles (Moratto 1984). Moratto et al. (1978) demonstrated that this was a time of cultural stress, during which trading activity abated, warfare was common, and populations shifted away from the Sierra Nevada foothills to higher mountain elevations. They explain these changes in terms of rapid climatic fluctuations, including a drier climate and a corresponding shift of vegetation zones. |
| Final Pacific Period A.D. 1400-1789 |
Populations became increasingly sedentary and depended more on staple foods, even as the diversity of foods exploited increased. Permanent settlements with high populations were more common. Every available ecological niche was exploited, at least on a seasonal basis. Other trends included the resurgence of long-distance trade networks and the development of more complex social and political systems. |
b. Ethnographic Background
The aboriginal inhabitants of the project area belonged to a group known as the "Costanoan", derived from the Spanish word Costanos ("coast people" or "coastal dwellers") who occupied the central California coast from the Golden Gate south to Monterey and as far east as the Diablo Range (Kroeber 1925; Hart 1987). Descendants of these people prefer to refer to themselves as "Ohlone" and it is now the generally accepted form. In 1770, the Ohlone lived in approximately 50 separate and politically autonomous tribelets with each group having one or more permanent villages surrounded by a number of temporary camps. Physiographic features usually defined the territory of each group, which generally supported a population of approximately 200 persons with a range of between 50 to 500 individuals (Levy 1978).
The Ohlone were gatherers and hunters who utilized only the native flora and fauna with the exception of one domesticate, the dog. The proximity of both mountainous and bay regions in the Santa Clara Valley made a diversity of resources available during different seasons to the native inhabitants. A primary food source was acorns, abundant in autumn and easily stored for the remainder of the year although this particular food first became a major source of food in the Middle Period as is indicated by the appearance of mortars and pestles in the archaeological record (King and Hickman 1973). The acorn also required an elaborate process of grinding and leaching acorns to render them palatable. Other important resources for the Ohlone included a large variety of plant foods, land animals, and the marine resources of the San Francisco Bay. Both large and small land mammals were typically hunted, trapped or poisoned. Many items, including shell beads and ornaments, were extensively traded with other groups as far away as the Great Basin of Nevada (Davis 1974).
For the most part, the Costanoan aboriginal lifeway disappeared by 1810 due to the introduction of EuroAmerican diseases, a declining birth rate, and the impact of the mission system. The Costanoan were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers who lived at the missions and worked with former neighboring groups such as the Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok. Later, because of the secularization of the Missions by Mexico in 1834, most of the aboriginal population gradually moved to ranchos to work as manual laborers (Levy 1978). For a more extensive review of the Native Americans in the Santa Clara Valley see Kehl and Yamane (1995), Milliken (1995b), Levy (1978), Kroeber (1925) and Shoup and Milliken (1999).
c. Historic Background
1) Hispanic Period
Spanish explorers in the late 1760s and 1770s were the first Europeans to traverse the bottomlands of the lower Guadalupe River and the Santa Clara Valley. Jose Francisco Ortega, a soldier in the exploring party of Gaspar de Portola and Juan Crespi, made the first recorded crossing of the stream in the vicinity of present day Alviso during November 1769 but no clear record remains of his exact route and his impressions of the area (Beck and Haase 1974:16-17; James and McMurry 1933:8). Juan Bautista de Anza and Pedro Font led the next expedition through the area in early 1776, leaving a substantial record of their travels. The explorers commented on the level land and good pasturage, concluding that the area would be an excellent site for settlement (Bolton 1930). Anza recorded three native villages in the vicinity of his campsite, each reportedly composed of approximately 70 persons. Anza noted some "paths and trails" heading to the south and concluded that the same tribe of Indians dwelled throughout the entire valley (Bolton 1930).
After an initial period of exploration, the Spanish focused on the founding of presidios, missions, and secular towns with the land held by the Crown (1769-1821) whereas the later Mexican (1822-1848) policy stressed individual ownership of the land. Following the favorable reports by Anza and Font, the Spanish moved to occupy the lands along the lower Guadalupe founding both the Pueblo de San Jose and the Mission Santa Clara de Asis in 1777. The Pueblo of San Jose de Guadalupe was one of the three towns founded to administer and coordinate the missions and presidios of Alta California (Hendry and Bowman 1940:750).
On November 29, 1777, Lieutenant Commander Jose Moraga and 14 settlers from the Presidio of San Francisco established the Pueblo de San Jose on the eastern bank of the Guadalupe River making the town the first civil settlement in Alta California. The Guadalupe River played a major role in the early development of the Santa Clara Valley attracting the Spanish explorers to its banks and influencing the location of both Mission Santa Clara and the pueblo of San Jose. Settlers (pobladores) within the Pueblo were granted house lots (solares) and cultivation plots (suertes). These plots were sometimes bounded by cactus outlining garden, house, or property boundaries. The undeveloped lands surrounding the Pueblo were suburbs or common lands (ejidos) used for the grazing of livestock and retained for future residential growth of the Pueblo. The solares and suertes granted to the pobladores technically continued to be the property of the King of Spain and could not be sold by the grantees, but were passed to succeeding generations of the family.
Mission Santa Clara provided all the religious needs of the Pueblo until 1851 (Hall 1871:84) and, as one of seven missions located within Costanoan territory, would have been the mission with the greatest impact on the aboriginal population living in the Santa Clara Valley (Hart 1987).
During the Mexican Period (1821 to 1848) when rancho grants began to be awarded by the Mexican government, title was based on a rough verbal description and a hand drawn sketch map (diseno) of the desired lands (Cartier, Laffey et al. 1994; Laffey 1990). The loose land ownership arrangement became a problem after the Mexican-American War when California became part of the United States. A number of Euro-American settlers laid claim to many of the rancho lands. In 1847, pressure was placed upon the town council (known as the Junta) to make more land available for public ownership. The council decided that the vast areas of unoccupied pueblo lands (ejidos) would be subdivided into 500-acre lots and sold. James D. Hutton was hired to survey this land into 500-acre lots, which then would be distributed to heads of families. However, Hutton was a poor surveyor, and most lots were later discovered to be short several hundred acres. In 1848, a new surveyor, Chester Lyman, resurveyed most of the 500-acre lots and found gross inaccuracies in Hutton's survey. Since title to these lands was conditional, and in most instances, the conditions had not been met, the council declared them forfeited in 1850. It was also determined by the Governor of California that the Junta had no authority to dispose of these lands (Laffey 1981). In spite of their invalidity, however, references to the Five-Hundred-Acre lots continued to be mentioned in deed records for many years to come.
Table IV-E-2
Comparison of California Cultural Period
with Temporal Phases of Central California (Allen et al., 1999)
|
Cultural
Periods |
Dating
Scheme B1 (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987) |
|
| Year | Time Period | |
| EMERGENT PERIOD |
Historic Period | |
| AD 1800 | --------------------------------------------- | |
| Late Period Phase 2-B | ||
| AD 1700 | --------------------------------------------- | |
| Late Period Phase 2-A | ||
| AD 1500 | --------------------------------------------- | |
| Late Period Phase 1-C | ||
| AD 1300 | --------------------------------------------- | |
| Late Period Phase 1-B | ||
| AD 1100 | --------------------------------------------- | |
| Late Period Phase 1-A | ||
| UPPER ARCHAIC PERIOD |
AD 900 | -------------------------- |
| Middle/Late Period Transition | ||
| AD 700 | --------------------------------------------- | |
| Middle Period Terminal Phase | ||
| AD 500 | --------------------------------------------- | |
| Middle Period Late Phase | ||
| AD 300 | --------------------------------------------- | |
| Middle Period Intermediate Phase | ||
| AD 100 | --------------------------------------------- | |
| Middle Period Early Phase | ||
| 200 BC | --------------------------------------------- | |
| Early/Middle Period Transition | ||
| MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD |
500 BC | --------------------------------------------- |
| Early Period | ||
| 3000 BC | --------------------------------------------- | |
| LOWER ARCHAIC PERIOD |
||
| 6000 BC | --------------------------------------------- | |
| PALEOINDIAN PERIOD |
||
| 8000 BC | --------------------------------------------- | |
2. American Period
The population of the Santa Clara Valley expanded as a result of the Gold Rush (1848), followed later by the construction of the railroad to San Francisco (1864) and the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869. Throughout the late 19th century in the Santa Clara Valley, rancho and Pueblo related lands were subdivided as the result of population growth.
By the late 1840s, the number of Americans in the Pueblo was rapidly rising. Americans as well as Europeans were attracted to the Santa Clara Valley for the fertile soil and close proximity of water. Many settlers acquired land titles for the "500-acre" lots along the various watercourses, especially along the Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek. Land was used for investment purposes, agricultural development, and pastures. During the early American Period (1847-1876), stock raising predominated, giving way to a combination of wheat-barley production, dairy farms, and orchards in the 1860s-1870s. Along the Coyote Creek, pioneer horticulturists and nurserymen experimented with every type of horticultural and landscaping plant (Cartier, Laffey et al. 1994). In addition to the agricultural development within the valley, early industrial development occurred along the creeks and the Guadalupe River including grist milling, brick making, lumbering, wineries, and canneries.
The arrival of the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad (1863-1864), followed by the development of the refrigerator railroad car (ca. 1880s) had major impacts on the study area. The railroad and refrigerator car were crucial for the transport of agricultural produce to distant markets. With the growing population in the 1860s, land values increased encouraging the subdivision of large land holdings and creating smaller farms. In addition, cattle ranching was pushed out of the valley into the foothills. At this time, the railroad also contributed to the development of the area by expanding markets for the innovative early agriculturists who had experimented with every type of fruit and vegetable. Through trial and error, they determined which fruits and vegetables were most suited to the local climate. Crops were shipped across the country where higher prices could be obtained, especially after the technology for fruit drying and canning was perfected (Cartier, Laffey et al. 1994). Lumbering was also a major industry in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It provided a supply of lumber for the growing valley population and increased the inaccessible regions above the valley to farm (Payne 1987:105). All of these developments spurred population growth in the Santa Clara Valley and the importance of San Jose, which served as a primary service center, the focus of industry, the County seat, the financial center, and social center for the region.
As the population increased during the late 1800s and early 1900s, areas close to the city limits were incorporated and agricultural lands close to town were the first to be included in new residential subdivisions. The development of more intensive agricultural practices and the desire to utilize lands within the flood zone for residential development led to efforts to modify and control flooding of the Guadalupe River (Laffey 1990). Some of the watercourses within the valley were dammed, rechannelized, or diverted to avoid flooding into these developed areas during the later part of the nineteenth century. However, not all waterways were altered until later. The Coyote Creek, for example, was not dammed until 1936 leaving the areas by this watercourse susceptible to unpredictable flooding after heavy winter rains (Payne 1987:139).
Fruit production became a major industry during the later American Period and into the Contemporary Period (ca. 1876-1940s). This predominance of fruit production and associated processing facilities held steady until after World War II. Land modifications continued throughout the Santa Clara Valley during the twentieth century and especially after World War II and the Korean War. In recent decades, the old agrarian land-use pattern has been displaced by dense urban housing, commercial centers, the development of an extensive highway system and the rise of the electronics industry as part of the "Silicon Valley" (Broek 1932; Hart 1987).
2. Significance Criteria
a. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires that a project applicant determine potential impacts on both historical and archaeological cultural resources and mitigate impacts on historically or culturally significant resources.
A maintenance project would have significant impacts to cultural resources if it would:
Criterion Cul-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5;
Criterion Cul-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5;
Criterion Cul-3 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature;
Criterion Cul-4 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
In addition, as part of its CEQA procedures, a Lead Agency should make provisions for historical or archaeological resources that are accidently discovered during construction. Special rules apply in those situations, as discussed below.
1) Historical Resources
CEQA equates a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource with a significant effect on the environment (Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code) and defines substantial adverse change as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration that would impair historical significance (Section 5020.1). Section 21084.1 stipulates that any resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources(1) is presumed to be historically or culturally significant.(2)
Resources listed in a local historic register or deemed significant in a historical resource survey (as provided under Section 5024.1g) are presumed historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates they are not. A resource that is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR, is not included in a local register of historic resources, or not deemed significant in a historical resource survey may nonetheless be historically significant (Section 21084.1; see Section 21098.1).
2) Archaeological Resources
CEQA requires a Lead Agency to identify and examine environmental effects that may result in significant adverse effects. Where a project may adversely affect a unique archaeological resource, Section 21083.2 requires the Lead Agency to treat that effect as a significant environmental effect and prepare an EIR. When an archaeological resource is listed in or is eligible to be listed in the CRHR, Section 21084.1 requires that any substantial adverse effect to that resource be considered a significant environmental effect. Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 operate independently to ensure that potential effects on archaeological resources are considered as part of a project's environmental analysis. Either of these benchmarks may indicate that a project may have a potential adverse effect on archaeological resources.
Public Resources Code 21083.2 (g) defines a unique archaeological resource to be: 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: (1) contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; (2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or, (3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
Section 21084.1 requires treatment of any substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource listed in, or eligible to be listed in, the CRHR as a significant effect on the environment. The definition of "historical resource" includes archaeological resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the CRHR and by reference, the NRHP, California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, and local registers.
b. Other California Laws and Regulations
Other state level requirements for cultural resources management appear in the California Public Resources Code Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5 (Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites), and Chapter 1.75, beginning at Section 5097.9 (Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites) for lands owned by the state or a state agency.
The disposition of Native American burials is governed by Section
7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Sections 5097.94 and
5097.98 of the Public Resources Code, and falls within the jurisdiction of the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). If human remains are
discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there
should be no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If
the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner
is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant
to Section 5097.98, will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most
likely descended from the deceased Native American so they can inspect the
burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) established
the federal government's policy on historic preservation and the programs,
including the NRHP, through which that policy is implemented. Under the
NHPA, historic properties include ". . . any prehistoric or historic district, site,
building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the
National Register of Historic Places" (16 United States Code [USC] 470w (5)).
Section 106 (16 USC 470f) of the NHPA requires federal agencies, prior to
implementing an "undertaking" (e.g., issuing a federal permit), to consider the
effects of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that
would adversely affect properties eligible for listing on the NRHP.
If a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit is required for
construction (wetland fills or crossings), the NHPA of 1966 (as amended) and
its implementing regulations (16 USC 470 et seq., 36 CFR Part 800, 36 CFR
Part 60, and 36 CFR Part 63) also apply. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), as lead federal agency for issuing the CWA Section 404 permit,
would be the lead agency for NHPA Section 106 compliance and consultation
with the SHPO and ACHP would be required.
3. Impacts and Mitigation
Some of the planned routine maintenance work under the SMP may have
the potential to disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance. All
channels within the District that are part of the proposed project should be
considered either within or adjacent to culturally significant areas because
many of the settlement locations in prehistoric and historic times have been
located adjacent to water sources. Work on and adjacent to the channels should
be viewed as having a potential to impact as yet unknown cultural resources.
Because it is infeasible to analyze each possible work site for impacts in
advance, the Program EIR develops a standard protocol so that the presence of
resources and the level of impacts can be determined when the SMP is
implemented..
This standard protocol is part of the Stream Maintenance Program in the
form of Best Management Practices (BMP). If the program conforms to these
BMPs, there will be no significant impacts to cultural resources.
Impact Cul-1: Disruption of Cultural Resources
Mitigation: Protocol for Unexpected Discovery of Archaeological
Cultural Materials In the event that any cultural resources are exposed during
construction, work at the location of the find will halt immediately within 10
meters (30 feet) of the find. If an archaeologist is not present at the time of the
discovery, the SCVWD will contact an archaeologist for identification and
evaluation in accordance with CEQA criteria.
It is expected that a reasonable effort will be made by the Construction
Manager in consultation with the SCVWD and archaeologist to avoid or
minimize harm to the discovery until significance is determined and an
appropriate treatment can be identified and implemented. Methods to protect
finds include fencing, covering remains with protective material and cultural
sterile soil or plywood. If vandalism is a threat, a 24-hour security system may
be necessary. During this evaluation period, construction operations outside of
the find location can continue preferably with an archaeologist monitoring any
subsurface excavations.
If the find is evaluated not significant, that is, not potentially eligible for
the California Register of Historical Resources by the archaeologist,
construction can continue. The archaeologist will prepare a brief informational
memo/letter that describes and assesses the significance of the resource,
including a discussion of the methods used to determine significance for the
find. The letter shall be forwarded to the SCVWD Project Manager.
If the property appears significant, that is potentially eligible for the
California Register of Historical Resources, the archaeologist will determine if
the resource can be avoided and detail avoidance procedures. If the resource
cannot be avoided, the archaeologist will develop an appropriate Action Plan
for treatment within 48 hours to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects. The
SCVWD Project Manager will not proceed with construction activities that
could affect the discovery until the Action Plan has been reviewed and
approved. The treatment effort required to mitigate the inadvertent exposure
of significant cultural resources will be guided by a research design appropriate
to the discovery and potential research data inherent in the resource in
association with suitable archaeological field techniques and analytical
strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in
accordance with current archaeological standards. Any non-grave associated
artifacts will be curated with an appropriate repository.
Mitigation: Standard Protocol to Determine Project Potential to
Affect Cultural Resources For the purposes of this section, "construction"
refers to any maintenance activity which involves excavation, scraping or any
other type of disturbance of native soil or rock. It does not include vegetation
management including spraying and cutting. The majority of maintenance
projects do not involve the excavation of previously undisturbed material as
they are usually conducted at locations previously disturbed by previous
maintenance activities. Maintenance work under the Stream Maintenance
Program will specify the projects that are contemplated for the upcoming year
in an annual reporting process. It is recommended that certain planned projects
be reviewed simultaneously for cultural resources impacts, if possible, at least
three months prior to need.
A cultural resources specialist will conduct a review and evaluation of
those sites that would involve disturbance/excavation of native soil previously
undisturbed by contemporary human activities to determine their potential for
affecting significant cultural resources. The evaluation of the potential to
disturb cultural resources will be based on an initial review of archival
information provided by the California Historical Resources System/Northwest
Information Center (CHRIS/NWIC) in regard to the project area based on a
0.25 mile search radius. It is recommended that this initial archival review be
completed by a professional archaeologist under contract to the SCVWD who
will be able to view confidential site location data and literature to arrive at a
preliminary sensitivity determination. The research staff at CHRIS/NWIC often
provide a preliminary sensitivity determination with the archival records search
but usually recommend that further corroborating research be conducted by an
archaeologist. The preceding evaluation, if necessary, would consist of a
further archival record search and literature review; and, if necessary, a field
inventory of the project area to determine the presence/absence of surface
cultural materials associated with either prehistoric or historic occupation. The
enhanced search would also include a review of the Sacred Lands Inventory of
the Native American Heritage Commission. The results along with any
mitigation and/or management recommendations would be presented in an
appropriate report format and include any necessary maps, figures, and
correspondence with interested parties.
The search and field inventory results would be used to prepare a
summary table indicating appropriate management actions (e.g., monitoring
during construction, presence/absence testing for subsurface resources; data
recovery, etc.) for each planned project.
Impact Cul-2: Disruption of Native American Burials
Mitigation: Protocol for Discovery of Native American Burials
Native Americans consider the graves of their ancestors of utmost importance
and wish to prevent the disturbance of interments. The remains and the
offerings buried with them are sacred to Native Americans. When a grave is
inadvertently disturbed during construction, the remains must be treated with
respect.
In general, the Native American Burial Plan (NABP) provides
procedures to follow if and when prehistoric skeletal remains are discovered
during construction to ensure compliance with state mandates and the desires
of the local Native American peoples. The NABP provides direction on
treatment (avoidance, removal, temporary storage), laboratory analysis,
reburial, reporting, and curation.
The NABP will be followed if Native American skeletal remains are
exposed during project construction. A Most Likely Descendent (MLD)(3) will
be assigned by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) upon
notification of the inadvertent discovery of Native American skeletal remains
(see NABP) and will provide both recommendations on further treatment and
contact with the local Native American community.
State law shall be followed in regard to the discovery of Native American
burials on state and private land (Chapter 1492, Section 7050.5 to the Health
and Safety Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public
Resources Code; Native American Heritage Commission [State of California]
[NAHC] 1994).(4) The Burial Plan conforms to California law and regulations.
Native American Burial Plan (NABP)
1 The California Register of Historical Resources is a listing of "¼those properties which are to be protected from substantial adverse
change." Any resource eligible for listing in the California Register is also to be considered under CEQA. Consensus determinations for
the California Register for the purposes of CEQA are solely the responsibility of the lead agency (CAL/OHP ca. 1999b).
2 A historical resource may be listed in the California Register of Historical Resources if it meets one or more of the following criteria: "(1)
it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural
heritage of California or the United States; (2) it is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;
(3) it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or
possesses high artistic values; or, (4) it has yielded or has the potential to yield information important in the prehistory or history of the
local area, California or the nation." (CAL/OHP ca. 1999b).
Automatic CRHR listings include National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed and determined eligible historic properties (either by
the Keeper of the NRHP or through a consensus determination on a project review); State Historical Landmarks from number 770 onward;
Points of Interest nominated from January 1998 onward. Landmarks prior to 770 and Points of Historical Interest may be listed through
an action of the State Historical Resources Commission (CAL/OHP ca. 1999b).
3 A Most Likely Descendent (MLD) is a person the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) believes to be most likely descended
from the deceased Native American) (California Public Resources Code 5097.9, .91-99). Under California law, this individual can
recommend appropriate treatment of Native American human remains (e.g., in situ preservation, exhumation, analyses, report, etc.)
discovered during construction or other activities.
4 The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is an executive agency of the State of California. Its nine members are appointed
by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. In regard to Native American human remains, upon notification of discovery
of human remains, the NAHC, notifies those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American.
RETURN
TO TOP OF PAGE
RETURN
TO TABLE OF CONTENTS