Cultural Resources Report

HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT/ FINDING OF EFFECT

(No Historic Properties Affected)

GREEN VALLEY TRAIL PROJECT SAN MATEO COUNTY

FOR

QUESTA ENGINEERING CORPORATION Box 70356

1120 Brickyard Cove, Suite 206 Point Richmond, CA 94807

ATTN: Jeffrey H. Peters, Principal

BY

BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES 1933 Davis Street, Suite 210

San Leandro, CA 94577

OCTOBER 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-3

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2-3 1.1A Identification Effort 2 1.1B Results 2 1.1C Recommendations 2-3

1.2 FINDING OF EFFECT 3 1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 3

2.0 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 3-5

2.1 LOCATION 3 2.2 DESCRIPTION 3-5

2.2A Project Components 4-5 2.3 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (APE) 4

3.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT 6

4.0 BACKGROUND REVIEW 6-18

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 6-7 4.1A Geology 6-7 4.1B Soils 7

4.2 NATIVE AMERICAN 7-13 4.2A Prehistoric 7-11 4.2B Ethnographic 11-13

4.3 HISTORIC ERA 13-18 4.3A Hispanic Period 13-15 4.3B American Period 15-18 Green Valley and Historic Map Review 16-18

5.0 PRE-FIELD IDENTIFICATION EFFORT 18-19

5.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS 18-19 5.1A Compliance Reports 18-19 5.1B Recorded and/or Reported Sites 19 5.1C Listed Historic Properties 19 5.1D Archaeological Sensitivity 19

6.0 INDIVIDUALS, GROUP AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION 20

7.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INVENTORY 20-22

8.0 FINDINGS 22-23

TABLE OF CONTENTS, con’t

9.0 FINDING OF EFFECT 23

10.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND POST-REVIEW DISCOVERY PROCEDURES 23

12.0 REFERENCES CITED AND CONSULTED 24-36

ATTACHMENTS

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 General Project Location

FIGURE 2 Project Location (USGS Montara Mountain, CA 1997)

FIGURE 3 Trail Segments with Photo View Locations

FIGURE 4 Green Valley Trail Improvement Plan - Area of Potential Effects

FIGURE 5 Upper Parking Area from Hwy 1 - view east

FIGURE 6 Pile of imported river cobbles at eastern edge of Upper Parking Area

FIGURE 7 Trail Segment 5, view northeast along road to former housing

FIGURE 8 Trail Segment 5, view southwest across the southern end of project area

FIGURE 9 Trail Segment 4, former housing - view northeast

FIGURE 10 Trail Segment 4, drainage crossing - view north

FIGURE 11 Trail Segment 4, aluminum trailer adjacent to trail near former housing

FIGURE 12 Trail Segment 4, collapsed wooden structure near former housing - view east

FIGURE 13 Trail Segments 2 and 3, view north from Trail Segment 5

FIGURE 14 Trail Segment 3, view northwest along a typical section of single track trail

FIGURE 15 Trail Segment 2C, landscaping on slope - view northwest

FIGURE 16 View east across the northern end of the project area

CORRESPONDENCE

LETTER Request to Native American Heritage Commission

LETTER Response from Native American Heritage Commission

TABLE OF CONTENTS, con’t

ATTACHMENTS, con't

CORRESPONDENCE, con't

LETTER Letters to Native American Individuals and Groups Recommended by the Native American Heritage Commission

MEMO Record of Native American Contacts

CHRIS/NWIC SEARCH RESULTS

SEARCH 1 File No. 15-0396 dated September 17, 2015 (No Confidential Information)

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

This Historic Property Survey Report/Finding of Effect (HPSR/FOE) report for the Green Valley Trail Project, San Mateo County, California represents the identification and evaluation effort and application of effect completed for the construction of a the Green Valley Trail, a segment of the California Coastal Trail.

This trail, described in the Devil's Slide Final Public Access Implementation Plan (Caltrans, May 2005), is considered part of the original environmental document completed for the construction of the Devil’s Slide Improvement Project (SEIR/SEIS 1999). Trail implementation is required as a condition of state and local agency permitting for the Devil’s Slide tunnel project, consistent with the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program, and is included in the California Coastal Commission’s Public Access Action Plan adopted by the Commission in June 1999.

The proposed undertaking may require a permit in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344) and must comply with the regulatory requirements of the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps) with regard to cultural resources (historic properties). The Corps (San Francisco District) is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsible entity and is required to complete the federal regulatory requirements for cultural resources pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) (54 U.S.C. § 306108) and its implementing regulations 36 CFR Part 800. The regulations require a federal agency with jurisdiction over a federal, federally assisted or federally licensed undertaking to take into account the effects of the undertaking on Historic Properties, properties that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the undertaking should it adversely affect a NRHP eligible or NRHP listed property. The criteria for determining NRHP eligibility are found in 36 CFR Part 60. The District is the lead local agency and the Corps (San Francisco District) is the lead federal agency for the project. The Corps is responsible for consulting with the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on their identification and evaluation efforts and on the effects, if any, of the undertaking upon Historic Properties in accordance with 54 U.S.C. § 302303(b)(5), (b)(6) and (b)(9).

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for Archaeology includes the area within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, should any be present. The horizontal and vertical APE consists of the proposed construction within the project's right of way (ROW) including access roads to the project area and staging areas for material laydown and storage of excavated spoil.

Funding for the planning phase of the Green Valley Trail project relies on a California Coastal Conservancy grant and from the County Board of Supervisors (see Harris 2015). The San Mateo County Department of Parks and the Corps (San Francisco District) is the lead federal agency for the project. The California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is the final reviewing party.

This document provides supporting materials for the Section 106 identification and evaluation including the results of a records search, a review of pertinent literature, consultation with local

Historic Property Survey Report/Finding of Effect (HPSR/FOE) Green Valley Trail Project, San Mateo County, California

October 2015

2

Native Americans, and a field review and requests the SHPO to concur that: (1) the identification effort is complete pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4(a)-(c); and, (2) a finding of No Historic Properties Affected pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4(d)(1) for historic properties as the Undertaking will have no effect as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(i).

1.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

No historic properties listed, determined eligible, or potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register have been identified in or adjacent to the Area of Potential Effects (APE) as result of archival research, Native American consultation and a field inventory. The APE is defined as the areas subject to direct impact including the trail and any temporary construction easements.

1.1A Identification Effort

The identification effort included archival research, a review of pertinent literature, a systematic archaeological field inventory, and consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and individuals and groups recommended by the NAHC.

1.1B Results

No prehistoric or combined prehistoric/historic era sites have been recorded or reported in or adjacent to the proposed project.

No known ethnographic, traditional or contemporary Native American use areas and/or other features of cultural significance have been identified in or adjacent to the project.

No known Hispanic Period expeditions, adobe dwellings, or other structures, features, etc. have been reported in or adjacent to the proposed project.

No American Period archaeological sites have been recorded or reported in or adjacent to the proposed project.

No evidence of significant prehistoric or historically significant archaeological resources or potentially significant architectural resources was observed during the field survey conducted for the proposed project.

Geoarchaeological data, combined with the lack of recorded archaeological resources, suggests a low potential for buried archaeological resources.

No local, state or federal historically or architecturally significant structures, landmarks, or points of interest have been identified within or adjacent to the project.

No historic properties listed, determined eligible, or potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP have been identified in or adjacent to the proposed project.

1.1C Recommendations

Subsurface testing to supplement the surface field inventory is not recommended as most of alignment has been previously impacted by an existing trail alignment with portions used as a fill area to waste from the Devil's Slide tunnel construction. In addition, the


October 2015

3

archival and literature record and the geoarchaeological data suggest a low potential for exposing subsurface resources.

The development of a formal Post-Review Discovery Plan is not recommended due to the low potential for exposing archaeological material within the project APE.

1.2 FINDING OF EFFECT

No historic properties listed, determined eligible, or potentially eligible for the NRHP have been identified in or adjacent to the project's APE.

A determination of No historic properties affected (36 CFR Part 800.4(d)(1) appears appropriate as the project will not affect any historic properties listed, determined eligible, or potentially eligible for the NRHP.

1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES

No project specific mitigation measures are required for historic properties/cultural resources.

Post-review discoveries shall be handled as per 36 CFR Part 800.13(b).

The exposure of any Native American burials shall be handled in accordance with state law.

2.0 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 2.1 LOCATION

Green Valley is located approximately 20 miles south of San Francisco, eight miles north of Half Moon Bay, and one mile south of Pacifica in the northern portion of the Santa Cruz Mountains, San Mateo County. The Green Valley Trail project area begins approximately 800 feet south of the Devil’s Slide south trailhead and crosses the intermittent Green Valley Creek, encompassing portions of Caltrans right of way, private land , and the California State Parks’ McNee Ranch, part of Montara State Beach. The project ends at the upper parking area for Gray Whale Cove State Beach, east of State Highway 1 in northern San Mateo County (United States Geological Survey (USGS) Montara Mountain, CA 1997 1993; T 5 South, R 5 West [T 5S, R 5W], unsectioned) [Figs. 1-3].

2.2 DESCRIPTION

The Green Valley Trail Project, designed for pedestrian, equestrian and mountain bike use, will construct 5800 linear-feet of the California Coastal Trail south of the Devil’s Slide Tunnel and Devil’s Slide Regional Trail and connect to the parking area at Gray Whale Cove (Peters 2015:Initial Study). The trail starts approximately 800 feet south of the Devil’s Slide south trailhead parking area and continues east, south and west within Green Valley to the parking area at Gray Whale Cove, part of Montara State Beach. This trail segment is part of the California Coastal Trail and will use existing pathway, trail and road wherever possible to minimize impacts associated with new trail development and additional crossings. Of the approximately


October 2015

4

one-mile trail, only about 680 feet will be new trail construction. This new section will link existing pathways and cross Green Valley Creek (San Mateo County Parks 2014; Harris 2015).

The proposed trail would provide public access by reconstructing existing primitive trails and directing users to a safe route that respects coastal resources by moving bicycle and pedestrian use away from wetlands and other sensitive areas, provide vegetation enhancement and wetland protection, and use construction methods to minimize wildlife and soil disturbance. The proposed trail would be unpaved, and include three pedestrian/bicycle bridge/boardwalk segments to protect resources. In addition to a 3 foot to 6 foot wide unpaved trail section, retaining walls up to 3 feet high, way finding signs and benches are proposed along the trail.

A primary component of the project is erosion repair and reduction of sedimentation potential through appropriate trail design and implementation and the installation of erosion control features such as outsloping the trail, rolling dips, erosion control fabric, and site revegetation. Existing at-grade crossings of willow dominated riparian areas and wetlands will be replaced to minimize disturbance.

2.2A Project Components

The project plans to construct a 3 to 8 foot wide, 5800 foot long unpaved trail segment of the California Coastal Trail. Another 800-foot long trail section along Highway 1 from the Devil’s Slide south trailhead to this trail segment will be constructed separately by Caltrans and is not a part of this project. Of the 5800 feet of trail, most will be located on existing primitive trails and roads:

1,400 feet will be new trail construction, all within the Caltrans’ Devil’s Slide fill disposal site, where the trail will be located on the previously engineered slope.

2,400 feet of trail will consist of improving an existing primitive trail by localized earthwork to create a level trail surface and widen the trail from its current 2 foot wide to 3-5 feet wide. Three existing creek and drainage crossings (currently at grade) will be replaced with boardwalks (approximately 230 feet total) to minimize disturbance to willow-dominated riparian areas. The boardwalks propose to use hand-installed pin-pier foundations to minimize disturbance to the earth surface.

Relocation of a 100 foot portion of the existing trail away from an existing pond that is utilized by California red legged frog

2,000 feet of trail will be located on an existing State parks access road, which will be locally graded to create a level surface and repair existing erosion.

The existing dirt upper Gray Whale Cove parking area will be recontoured to repair erosion gullies, redirect drainage to a swale, level the surface and apply base rock to reduce erosion and sedimentation potential. A geotextile or permeable paver may be utilized to stabilize portions of the parking area.

Limited vegetation thinning (trail brushing) to provide horizontal and vertical clearance will be conducted immediately adjacent to the trail.

Other project elements include:


October 2015

5

200 cubic yards of earthwork (including 660 CY in existing parking area)

2,500 LF 3 ft. or less retaining wall

Rolling dips, placement of erosion control fabric, revegetation and other erosion control/sediment management features

110 LF 6 foot wide boardwalk over Green Valley Creek

120 LF total puncheon boardwalks over unnamed tributaries of Green Valley Creek

Minor improvements (such as gravel placement) to existing 2,000 LF access road to improve drainage and create a firm and stable walking surface

1- 2 display kiosks

3 - 4 benches

2 informational signs

2 - entry access gates

Temporary Construction

Temporary construction access and staging will be required and will utilize existing disturbed areas for staging. Construction crews would access the site from Highway 1 using the existing access road at Gray Whale Cove. The designated construction staging area will be located in the existing driveway and parking area for the state parks facilities. At the end of construction, this area will be graded to remove existing erosion gullies and to direct drainage into a vegetated swale that will utilize endemic native vegetation to blend with the existing setting.

Wildlife exclusion fencing will be erected and maintained around the perimeter of Green Valley Creek within 50 feet of the proposed work area, to prevent access to riparian and wetland areas, and to preclude San Francisco garter snake and California red-legged frog from entering the project work area. Wetland areas within the Limit of Work would also be protected by silt fencing. Vegetation clearing will be limited to a 10-foot wide band immediately adjacent to the trail alignment and will be supervised by a biologist.

Avoidance and Minimization

All of the trail segments have been sited to avoid significant and associated sensitive habitat/wetlands impacts, including relocation of one existing trail away from an existing resource. Low areas containing wetland indicator species will be avoided through the use of boardwalks, avoiding any substantial amount of wetland fill.

2.3 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (APE) [Fig. 4]

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) includes all areas where direct or indirect impacts - disturbance from construction activities and staging areas - may occur. The APE for Archaeology includes the area of direct impact and periphery to accommodate the joint-use path, and other improvements including landscaping and related infrastructure, staging areas, construction personnel parking areas, and areas for laydown and storage. Vertical impacts are estimated at no more than 12-18 inches for the trail and up to three feet for the retaining wall in areas outside of the Devil's Slide disposal area.


October 2015

6

3.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT

This report has been prepared to meet applicable federal regulatory requirements for historic properties (cultural resources) which require the identification and evaluation of cultural resources that could be affected by the project. 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 proposed undertaking must comply with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 and its implementing regulations 36 CFR Part 800 which requires a federal agency with jurisdiction over a federal, federally assisted or federally licensed undertaking to take into account the effect of the undertaking on properties listed on or eligible for the National Register and prior to approval of an undertaking to afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment on the undertaking.

San Mateo County Department of Parks is the lead state agency and the Corps (San Francisco District) is the lead federal agency for the project. The California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is the final reviewing party.

4.0 BACKGROUND REVIEW 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (after Peters et al. 2015)

Green Valley is located approximately one mile south of Pacifica, and east of Gray Whale Cove State Beach at the northern reach of the Santa Cruz Mountains, which are part of the Coast Range of California. The Valley is directly south of Devil’s Slide and east of State Highway 1 in northern San Mateo County. This small coastal valley consists of an alluvial fan draining Green Valley Creek, a small creek surrounded by steep, brush covered or erodible slopes with natural gradients ranging between thirty and seventy percent.

Soils within Green Valley are deep and moderately well drained along the creek channel, while the adjacent mountain slopes have shallow, excessively drained soils derived from highly weathered granitic rock. The surrounding mountain slopes support a dense vegetative cover of northern coastal scrub, dominated by coyote brush, while the valley is characterized by a dense riparian willow thicket and some limited freshwater marsh.

The Gray Whale Cove State Beach Trailhead and parking area is south of Green Valley Creek. An existing surfaced access road parallels the creek, heading east to former State Parks employee housing. Within this area, the trail would be located on the existing road and trails, crossing Green Valley Creek at an existing crossing northwest of the existing housing.

4.1A Regional and Site Geology

The proposed trail is in the Green Valley Creek alley near the northern and coastal end of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The region is considered part of the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province and is seismically active due to faulting. Elevation of the Coast Range also includes an aspect of compression relative to sea-level, which has formed several lines of marine terraces and is responsible for long-term uplift along the Santa Cruz Mountains and coast. Nearby faults include


October 2015

7

the San Andreas, Pillarcitos, San Gregorio and Seal Cove faults. The general trend of these faults, mountains and valleys is to the northwest. In the project area these faults have juxtaposed Franciscan complex rocks to the east against typically granitic rocks of the Salinian Block to the west, including those of the Montara Mountain and San Pedro Mountain Plutons that underlie Green Valley. The Devil’s Slide area is located near the contact of Franciscan complex rocks and granitic rocks. These Jurassic to Cretaceous age rocks are sometimes overlain by younger Cretaceous to Cenozoic clastic sedimentary rocks, while more recent Quaternary alluvium and colluvium has filled many of the valleys and flat areas along the coastal margin. Many of the coastal streams are entrenching or cutting through their former alluvial deposits, as well as older marine terraces.

The granitic mass comprising Montara Mountain covers about 30 square miles along the coast, while Franciscan core complex rocks are found about a mile to the northeast, separated from the granitic complex by the Montara and Pilarcitos faults. A recent geologic map of the area (USGS1998 [Brabb et al.]) describes Kgr, the granite rock unit underlying the trail planning area, as very light gray to light brown, medium to coarsely crystalline foliated granitic rock, largely quartz diorite with some granite. The project specific geological map shows the APE passing through areas of artificial fill (af), alluvium (Qal), colluvium (Qc) and granitic rocks of Montara Mountain (Kgr) (Harris 2015:Figure 2).

4.1B Soils

Soils within the study area are the Scarper-Miramar complex, 30 to 75 percent slopes (USDA 2015), mapped on coastal uplands. The Scarper soil is moderately deep and well drained material weathered from quartz- diorite with depth to bedrock ranging from 20 to 40 inches. The Miramar soil is moderately deep and well drained material derived dominantly from quartz-diorite with depth to bedrock ranging from 20 to 40 inches. In addition to the shallow soils of the Scarper and Miramar series there are small areas of local slope wash, colluvium and alluvium mapped in the bottom of Green Valley. These are unclassified deep sandy loam soils. In some areas the soils are poorly drained from shallow groundwater subsurface flow in a zone where Green Valley Creek is poorly defined. Soils derived from weathered granitic rock are considered highly erosive, partly due to the low inherent strength of the soil to resist raindrop impact and detachment.

4.2 NATIVE AMERICAN 4.2A Prehistoric

Cultural resources are traces of human occupation and activity. The project is located within an environmentally advantageous area for Native Americans and would have provided a favorable environment during the prehistoric period with coastal, riparian and inland resources readily available. Ocean resources and the foothills could have been easily accessed and local creeks and other water sources would have provided a year-round source of water and riparian resources. Travel would have been relatively easy between the shoreline and interior. The eastern hills would have provided access to acorns, seed, game, stone, etc. while the beaches, marshes and creeks would have been sources of shellfish, fish, waterfowl, and plant resources.


October 2015

8

Native American occupation and use of the general area appears to extend over 5,000-7,000 years and possibly longer. Habitation sites were undoubtedly selected for relative accessibility, protection from seasonal flooding, and proximity to a diversified resource base. 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 region consist of shell mounds, lithic scatters, quarries, habitation sites (including burials), bedrock mortars or other milling feature sites, petroglyph sites, and isolated burial sites.

Archaeological research in the San Francisco Bay Region 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) was first used to document local and regional cultural change in prehistoric central California including the study area. This classification scheme, using Early, Middle and Late "horizons" to designate both chronological periods and social change, was based on stratigraphic patterns and an analysis of grave goods to explain local and regional cultural change from about 4,500 years ago to the time of European contact (see Lillard et al. 1939; Beardsley 1948, 1954).

The scheme was modified by Beardsley (1948, 1954) who renamed the sequence the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS). This sequence proved inadequate and has since been revised and supplemented by new taxonomic systems recognizing cultural distinctions and associations in the Central California archaeological record (see collected essays by Bennyhoff and Fredrickson in Hughes 1994).

Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS)

Moratto (1984) suggests that the Early Horizon dated to ca. 4,500 to 3,500/3,000 years before present with the Middle Horizon dating to ca. 3,500 to 1,500 years before present and the Late Horizon dating to ca. 1,500 to 250 years before present. 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.


October 2015

9

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.

Local Sequence Characteristics

The complexity of the archaeological record in the central California region has resulted in the development and refinement of local sequences with specific cultural traits and chronologies (see Hughes 1994). Fredrickson (1974, 1994a-b) has proposed a tripartite scheme - Archaic, Emergent and Ethnographic - each with appropriate characteristics. The Lower Archaic (10,000-6,000 B.P.) and the Initial Middle Archaic (6,000-4,500 B.P.) are not well known (see Meyer and Rosenthal 1997). The other divisions are reasonably well represented. Additional details on the chronology and characteristics of these cultural divisions are presented in Fredrickson (1974, 1994a-b). Hylkema (see Allen 1999) has presented a four-period chronological framework for the Northern Santa Clara Valley/Southern San Francisco Bay region using the Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987) taxonomy as revised by Milliken and Bennyhoff (1993) and Fredrickson (1994a-b) [see Table 4.1].

Terminal Middle Archaic (4,500-2,500 B.P.)

The Terminal Middle Archaic is equivalent to the Early Period in Dating Scheme B (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987). Initial use of the shell mound sites along San Francisco Bay appears to have started during this period (see Banks and Orlins 1985; Broughton 1996; Lightfoot 1997). Sites from the period are noted as having prehistoric burials, side-notched and stemmed projectile points, rectangular abalone ornaments, shaped and unshaped mortars and pestles, and rectangular Olivella shell beads (Fredrickson 1966). Obsidian sources include the North Coast Ranges and eastern Sierra (Wiberg 1996) although local cryptocrystalline raw materials are dominant. Subsistence focused on nuts and berries as well as bayshore resources (shellfish, marine fishes and mammals) while interior sites focused on freshwater fish and shellfish and terrestrial mammals (Banks and Orlins 1985; Simons 1992).

Upper Archaic (2,500-1,300 B.P.)

The Upper Archaic is equivalent to the Early/Middle Transition and the Middle Period in Dating Scheme B (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987). Numerous Upper Archaic sites are known from the lowland valleys and the San Francisco bayshore as well inland water sources (see Banks and Orlins 1979, 1985; Fredrickson 1968; Holman and Clark 1982; Lightfoot 1997).

Well-developed midden soils typical of long-term residential villages characterize Upper Archaic sites. Archaeological excavations have exposed deposits containing hundreds of flexed human burials and residential features. Early sites have Berkeley Pattern assemblages (ca. 3,000 B.P. to 1,000 B.P.) that are characterized by a bone tool and ornament industry, saucer and saddle-shaped Olivella shell beads, abalone ornaments and pendants, and unshaped and well-shaped mortars and pestles. Projectile points are typically shouldered lanceolate forms, although side-notched and stemmed points also occur, along with large lanceolate-shaped bifaces. Locally


October 2015

10

available chert dominates although obsidian from the North Coast Ranges and a number of eastern Sierran sources was used.

Subsistence appears to have focused on nuts and seeds with the faunal assemblages continuing to reflect either a marine or an interior emphasis depending on site location (Broughton 1996; Fredrickson 1968). However, marine shellfish begin to occur in appreciable amounts in interior valley sites (Fredrickson 1968).

This time period is also linked with the appearance of the Meganos Culture - a cultural group originating in the San Joaquin Delta and identified archaeologically as the Meganos Aspect of the Berkeley Pattern. It is postulated as migrating into various parts of the Bay Area at about 2,500 B.P. (Bennyhoff 1994; Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987) and has been described as a melding of bay and delta populations. The group is recognized archaeologically by a distinctive mortuary complex which featured few to no grave goods and a "non-standardized" mode of burial, including a mix of ventrally and dorsally extended and tightly flexed interments.

Emergent Period (1,300-200 B.P.)

The Emergent Period is equivalent to the Middle/Late Transition and the Late Period in the Dating Scheme B (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987). The period's distinctive cultural pattern is known at the Augustine Pattern (1,000 B.P. to contact) which is characterized by the appearance of small projectile points. The Meganos culture appears to have retreated to the southern Delta region at the beginning of the period (Bennyhoff 1994).

Emergent Period sites are found in the interior valleys and uplands as well as bayshore locations. The sites generally have a midden deposit with both cremation and inhumation burials and residential features that include house floors. Olivella and clamshell disc beads are frequently found as grave goods and non-associated in midden deposits. It is possible that bead manufacture was practiced at some sites based on the presence of manufacturing debris. Napa Valley obsidian dominates the chipped stone tool assemblages.

Bedrock mortar milling stations appear early in the Emergent Period and are used in association with other portable milling equipment. Nuts, berries and seeds, especially small seeds, were collected and processed. Large terrestrial mammals (e.g., deer, elk) appear to have been favored. Marine shellfish and marine fishes appear inland in much larger quantities than in previous periods (Fredrickson 1968).

Patterns within the Emergent Period differ in terms of primary subsistence activities and increasing social stratification. These patterns have been interpreted as linked to the spread of Utian language groups, followed by possibly the Miwok-Costanoan, and later by the Wintuan groups (Moratto 1984:207-211).

The information obtained from archaeological studies in the general area has played a key role in refining both the local and regional interpretations of Native American history for central California. General overviews and perspectives on the regional prehistory including chronological sequences can be found in C. King (1978a), Moratto (1984), Elsasser (1978) and Allen (1999), Jones and Klar (2007), and Milliken et al. (2007). See Moratto and Singh (1971) for a general review of San Mateo County and regional prehistory and Hylkema (1991, 2002) for


October 2015

11

detail regarding environment and chronology for selected archaeological sites from the southern San Francisco Bay and the peninsula coast.

TABLE 4.1 Comparison of California Cultural Period with Temporal Phases of Central California

(Allen et al. 1999)

Cultural Periods (Fredrickson 1994a-b)

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

4.2B Ethnographic

The aboriginal inhabitants of the region belonged to a group known as the "Costanoan", derived from the Spanish word Costanos ("coast people" or "coastal dwellers") who occupied the central


October 2015

12

California coast as far east as the Diablo Range. The term Costanoan, as applied by anthropologists, does not imply the existence of a politically unified entity, but rather refers to different groups of people who shared similar cultural traits and belonged to the same linguistic family. An estimated 200+ and possibly more persons of partial Costanoan descent currently reside in the greater San Francisco Bay Area; these individuals now generally prefer the term Ohlone to the anthropologists' Costanoan (Margolin 1978).

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. The tribelet territories, defined by physiographic features, generally supported a population of approximately 200 persons with a range of between 50-500 individuals. They usually had one or more permanent villages surrounded by a number of temporary camps. The camps were used to exploit seasonally available floral and faunal resources (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978; Hart 1987).

The Ohlone group north of the Green Valley Trail from Lake Merced south to Pedro Mountain has been identified as the Aramai (Brown 1975:20; Hoover et al. 1966:393; Milliken 1983:77-78) and alternatively as the Kirogte [Quiroste] (Bennyhoff 1977:164, Map 2)1 and Ramaytush (Levy 1978:485, Fig. 1) or Pruristac (Milliken 1995:229, Map 5, 251).

Pruristac (Prúrstac),2 and important village3 located in the lower San Pedro Creek/Valley area approximately two to three miles northwest of the project location in the City of Pacifica was known by the Spanish as the Cañada de las Almejas (Valley of the Mussels). The Mission outpost of San Pedro y San Pablo (Saints Peter and Paul), often referred to as "San Pedro" in the Mission San Francisco4 baptismal records, was built adjacent to Pruristac.5 This large mission ranch, constructed in mid-1786, was established to raise crops, relieve overcrowding at Mission San Francisco (Dolores), and to provide a base of operations closer to coastal villages further south. Most of neophytes at San Pedro were moved back to San Francisco in early spring 1792; by 1828 there were reportedly ". . . more than two dozen Indian hands" still at this outstation. In addition, there may have been two additional Aramai/Pruristac villages:6 (1) the seasonal camp or an abandoned village Véhtaca (Uectaca) in the Pedro Valley; and, (2) Mitline "in the direction of Aramai or the beach of Lake Merced"7 (Brown 1973-1974 btwn footnote 87-88, 91-92;

1. Milliken (1995:252, 229, Map 5) places Quiroste from Bean Hollow Creek south to Año Nuevo Creek and inland to Butano Ridge.

2. Note Levy (1978:485, Fig. 1, #16) refers to the tribelet of ramay (Cañada de las Almejas [Valley of the Mussels]. In the same article, Levy (op cit:495) states "Ramay was the tribelet that held the northern end of the [San Francisco peninsula" which Milliken 1983:78) that this is incorrect.

3. Levy's (1976) schematic map of Costanoan Language Groups appears to show a "tribelet capital,” likely Pruristac in the San Pedro Valley.

4. Native Americans, as "captives" of the mission system were a crucial source of labor. Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission Dolores) was formally established on October 9, 1776 (Beck and Haase 1974:#19; Hart 1987:324).

5. Pruristac, CA-SMa-71 (Milliken 1983:77) was situated on the north bank of San Pedro Creek behind the Sanchez Adobe (Hunter et al. 2002:15).

6. Milliken (1983:139, Map 4) shows only the villages of Timigtac and Pruristac within Aramai tribelet area.

7. The latter could have been the large Quiroste town of Mitinne located far south of the project or less likely a seasonal occupation in the Colma or Milagra Valley (Milliken 1983:78-79). Milliken (1979b:178) states


October 2015

13

Brown 1975:15 [Timigtac only]; Milliken 1983:77-79; Milliken and Sanchez 1979; Milliken 1995:102, 116, 251; Clark 2002:7/S-25067).

The Chiguan (Shiwam) from Point Montara south to Pilarcitos Creek occupied the area south of the Green Valley Trail APE. Two Chiguan village names appear in the Mission San Francisco baptismal register between 1783 and 1791 – Ssatumnumo, about three/four leagues8 south of the vicinity of San Pedro Valley at either El Granada or Half Moon Bay and Chagunte (Sagunte), about an additional league “from said place” in the vicinity of present-day Princeton or El Granada (Brown 1973-1974:21, footnotes #93-94; Milliken 1983:81-82, 139, Map 4; Milliken 1995:228, Map 4, 239).

By the late 1790s Native American herdsmen associated with the outstation of San Pedro would “. . . regularly drive horses and oxen over San Pedro Mountain (Montara Mountain) summit along the route which later the early American settlers would call the "Indian Trail." Reportedly this name appears on a 1866 US Coast Survey manuscript topographic sheet along with a “shorter, improved route labeled ‘Road Trail’”(Brown 1973-1974:21, footnote #95).

Extensive ethnographic data for the San Francisco Bay Region are lacking, and the aboriginal lifeway apparently disappeared by approximately 1810 due to introduced diseases, a declining birthrate, the cataclysmic impact of the mission system and the later secularization9 of the missions by the Mexican government and rancho system (Brown 1973-1974; Brown 1975:64; Levy 1978; Milliken 1983:82; Milliken 1995:251). The Ohlone were transformed from hunters and gatherers into generally agricultural laborers who lived at the missions and worked with former neighboring groups such as the Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok (Levy 1978:486). Later, due to secularization of the missions, the majority of the aboriginal population gradually moved to ranchos to work as manual laborers (Levy 1978:486). Thus, multi-ethnic Indian communities grew up in and around Ohlone territory and it was these people who provided ethnological data in the period from 1878 to 1933.

For a more extensive review of the Costanoan see Kroeber (1925:462-473), Harrington (1942), Galvan (1967/1968), Brown (1973-1974); C. King (1974, 1977, 1978b), Levy (1978), Bean (1994), and Milliken (1979a-b; 1983, 1995, 2006).

4.3 HISTORIC ERA 4.3A Hispanic Period

The history of the San Francisco Bay Region can be divided into the Age of Exploration, the Spanish Period (1769-1821), the Mexican Period (1822-1848), and the American Period (1848-

"Mitline may have at the fork in the old Camino Real where one could head south for San Pedro Valley (en aramai), north for Lake Merced, or northeast into Mission Valley. That is the present location of Colma."

8 Four Leagues (10.4 miles/16.8 kilometers) south of the San Pedro Valley after Milliken (1983:82) and three leagues in Milliken (1995:239).

9. A program which replaced Franciscan clergy with "secular" (parish) clergy, released Native American neophytes from mission jurisdiction, and converted mission property into pueblos (towns). Decrees were issued in Spain in 1813 and 1920 and in California in 1826 and 1834 - ten missions were secularized in 1834, six in 1835, and five in 1836 (Hart 1987:464).


October 2015

14

onward). During the Spanish Period government policy in northwestern New Spain was directed at the founding of presidios (forts), missions, and pueblos (secular towns) with the land held by the Crown. Between 1769-1823, 21 missions were established by the Franciscan priests along the California coast between San Diego and Sonoma. Later Mexican Period policy stressed individual ownership of the land with grants of vast tracts of land to individuals (Beck and Haase 1974; Hart 1987).

The first party to traverse the San Francisco Peninsula, Gaspar de Portolá and Father Juan Crespí traveled up the coast through what is now San Mateo County between October 23 and November 20, 1769. They were the first EuroAmericans to sight San Francisco Bay from Sweeney Ridge of the Montara Mountains (known at the time as Pedro Mountains). The northernmost camp was located on San Pedro Creek10 north of the APE on October 31, 1769 through November 3. The extended exploring trip of Sergeant Ortega which "discovered" San Francisco Bay11 (Hoover et al. 1966:390; CAL/OHP 1973, 1976, 1990:219-221; Chew and Riddle 1971; SMa/DEM 1986).

Fernando Javier Rivera y Moncada and Father Francisco Palou in 1774 and Bruno de Heceta and Palou in 1775 followed the Portola expedition route and continued through the general study area (Beck and Haase 1974:#17; Jackson 1971:19-20).12 Their routes likely followed an existing Native American trail, probably along the base of the hills along the coast (Dietz and Jackson 1970:46).

Mission San Francisco de Asis (also known as Mission San Francisco Dolores), the sixth of 21 missions in California was formally established in October 9, 1776. This mission had the greatest impact on the aboriginal population living in the project vicinity. The closest mission outpost, a rancheria known as San Pedro y San Pablo, was located in present-day Pacifica, in the San Pedro Valley near an Indian village. It was established in 1786 to resettle the neophytes and to raise livestock for the mission and Presidio of San Francisco. Due to disease, this settlement declined and continued as a large mission ranch after 1793 and by 1828 it was occupied by over two dozen Indians (Stanger 1963:20-21, 24, 26; Hoover et al. 1966:393; Brown 1973-1974:Indians on the Coast; Brown 1975; Hart 1987:324; Hynding 1982:21-23).

The APE is within the far southwestern part of Rancho San Pedro (Sanchez). This rancho of two square leagues was granted to Francisco Sanchez13 in January 1839 by Governor Juan B. Alvarado and was patented to him in November 1870. This rancho appears to correspond to the Native American district known as Aramai (including the present-day City of Pacifica and the Mission Dolores outpost known as San Pedro y San Pablo). Between 1842 and 1846, Sanchez constructed a grand adobe home on the ruins of the old mission outpost in the San Pedro Valley

10. State Landmark #24 (CAL/OHP 1990:219).

11. State Landmark #294, Site of the discovery of San Francisco Bay on Sweeney ridge (CAL/OHP 1990:220).

12. See also Richards (1973:opposite title page) for Portola Expedition route through San Mateo County. The Portola Expedition Historical Marker, State Landmark SRL 394, the "Site of the Discovery of San Francisco Bay" is located at the southeast corner of Highway 1 and Crespi Drive (Hoover et al. 1966:390; CAL/OHP 1990:221, #394; USGS 1980 Montara Mountain, Calif.).

13. Francisco was the son of Jose Antonio Sanchez who owned Rancho BuriBuri on the eastern side of San Mateo County (Hoover et al. 1966:393).


October 2015

15

north of the project. After the Mexican-American War, while all his rancho neighbors gradually lost their properties to lawyers and bankers, Francisco managed to keep his land. None of the known buildings and features associated with the outpost or rancho were located in the vicinity of the trail project (Lewis 1859 [plat]; Hendry and Bowman 1940:1007-1008a; Hoover et al. 1966:393 [as patented in 1858]; USGS 1980 Montara Mountain, Calif.).

For additional information see Jackson (1971) for summary of Portolá's, Crespí's, and Costansó's14 observations about the environmental setting and Native Americans as well as cultural site distributions.

4.3B American Period

California became a United States territory in 1848 through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican War of 1846-1847. California was not formally admitted as a state until 1850. Beginning in the mid-19th century, most of the rancho and pueblo lands were subdivided as a result of population growth, the American takeover, and the confirmation of property titles. The initial population explosion on the Peninsula was associated with the Gold Rush (1848), followed later by the construction of the transcontinental railroad (1869). Still later, European immigration and the development of a prosperous dairy industry had an impact on population growth in the area. Until about World War II, San Mateo County was dominated by an agricultural or rural land-use pattern. Coastside retains this pattern while the vicinity of the project, in large part due to topography, is characterized by open space within State of California and County of San Mateo beaches, parks and trails (Hart 1987).

“Coastside” San Mateo County

San Mateo County was created in 1856 from the southern part of San Francisco County and enlarged by annexing part of Santa Cruz County in 1868. Belmont was initially the County seat as a result of a fraudulent election; followed thereafter by "Redwood City" in 1857 (Hoover et al. 1966:389).

The “Coastside” of San Mateo County remained largely inaccessible and thus unpopulated through the 19th century. The coast’s early population centers were the small, remote rural towns of Half Moon Bay and Pescadero. Half Moon Bay, a Mexican agricultural settlement originally known as “Spanishtown,” had a sheltered landing at Pillar Point. The coast was early recognized as an excellent location for growing artichokes and other cool weather crops. A toll road over the Montara Mountains developed in 1866 connected the coast with the town of San Mateo. Even with a good “toll” road, it reportedly could take up to two days to carry produce with a horse-drawn wagon from the coast to the Peninsula railroad (Wagner 1974:10).

The northern section of the coast was flanked by the Pacific Ocean and absence of good natural harbors and the coastal hills to the east. After Francisco Sanchez’s death in 1862, Rancho San Pedro was divided into large tracts sold to financiers and speculators from San Francisco. The Tobin family, founders of the Hibernia Bank, and James Comerford, an early Colma pioneer,

14. Miguel Costansó, military engineer and cartographer on the San Carlos on the 1769-1770 Portolá Expedition (Hart 1987:113).


October 2015

16

bought large parcels that they leased to farmers and ranchers. Lack of access and adverse weather that damaged crops often undermined early efforts to develop an agricultural economy.

“Coastside” relied on land and sea transportation until the arrival of the Ocean Shore Railway Company, incorporated May 1905 and reorganized in 1911 as the Ocean Shore Railroad Company (OSRC). This 80.26 mile line extended from San Francisco along the San Mateo coast to Santa Cruz and was responsible for the founding of a number of Coastside villages. Almost immediately five communities were established along the rail line: Edgemar, Salada Beach (now Sharp Park), Brighton Beach, Vallemar and San Pedro Terrace (Linda Mar), and the beginnings of what would later become Pacifica. Later Montara, Moss Beach, Princeton, El Granada and Miramar were laid out south of Devil’s Slide. The railroad reached Rockaway Beach in September 1907 and Tobin Station on Point San Pedro (San Pedro Terrace) north of the APE in October 1907. As shown on a 1913 Ocean Shore Railroad route map, the route extended southward and included Green Canon (Green Canyon) between Tobin (north of the APE) and Montara (south of the APE).

The 26-mile gap in the railroad between Tunitas and Swanton was never completed and relied on a Stanley Steamer to transfer passengers and freight. The southernmost segment of the Ocean Shore Railroad continued from Swanton to Santa Cruz. The OSRC went into receivership in 1911, but it continued to operate for another nine years and the line was closed in October 1920. The railroad right-of-way was condemned in the early 1930s and Works Progress Administration (WPA) funds were used to build State Highway 1 (State Route 1, Pacific Coast or Cabrillo Highway) along most of the railroad track alignment. The highway through the project area was completed in 1937. Later, the two-lane highway expanded to a four-lane divided highway which opened August 1990 (USGS 1915; Stanger 1963:142-143; Dietz and Jackson 1970:40-41; Brown 1975:21 [Coast Highway]; Fickewirth 1992:95; Hynding 1982:147-148; VanderWerf 1992:36 [1913 Ocean Shore Railroad route map]; Walker 1997; Robertson 1998:174; Hunter et al. 2002:127; Hill 2009:9-11).

The northern part of the San Mateo County coast remained largely an agrarian area until after World War II and the beginning of the California post-war real estate. The study area, characterized by steep slopes associated with San Pedro and Montara Mountains remained “undeveloped”, hence the creation of open space – the State of California Parks Department Montara State Beach and nearby Gray Whale State Beach. The APE and vicinity are situated within a San Mateo County Scenic Corridor that encompasses the entire open space areas of Montara State Beach and Gray Whale Cove and beyond (SMa/DEM/PD 1980:Mid-Coast Cultural Resources). As noted above, south of the project other population clusters formed around former railroad stations - Montara, Moss Beach, and El Granda, Miramar, and Half Moon Bay. Nonetheless the area south of Half Moon Bay continues to be largely farms or open space (SMa/DEM/PD 1980:18-19; Hynding 1982:149; Hill 2009:11).

Green Valley and Vicinity Historic Map Review

A map of The Peninsula in Mission Days Under the Kingdom of Spain 1776-1822 by Brown (n.d. in Stanger 1963:21) shows a road linking various Mission outstations along the coast skirting the San Pedro Mountain and Montara Mountain. The stations closest to the trail


October 2015

17

alignment was San Pedro (1785) in the San Pedro Valley north of the trail and El Pilar (1790) in the vicinity of Princeton south of the Green Valley Trail APE.

The historic map review shows no significant features in the project APE. Portions of the Green Valley Trail may have been present in 1892. The portion of the APE from the upper Gray Whale Cove parking lot northeasterly to former structures just outside of the APE (APE Segment 4) appears on the 1980 USGS. This road dates to between 1939/1941 and 1956 (USGS 1896 [surveyed 1892]; 1980 [1956 photorevised], US War 1942 [photography 1939, topography 1941]).

Brown (1975:37) notes that the place name “Green Creek” apparently was also known as Three Fingered Creek. Green Valley initially appeared on a 1866 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey map as Cañada Verde, Spanish for Green Valley. Green canyon, has also been used, while “Green Valley” is used on an 1880 map.15

The 1859 Lewis survey plat of Rancho San Pedro finally confirmed to Francisco Sanchez shows no features including creeks or roads in the APE or vicinity.

Easton's 1868 Official Map of the County of San Mateo shows the Rancho San Pedro boundaries, but no creeks, roads, etc. in the vicinity of the APE.

Whitney’s 1873 Map of the Region Adjacent to the Bay of San Francisco shows rancho boundaries, but no creeks, roads, etc. in the vicinity of the APE. An inland coast side road is mapped, terminating at the “Sanchez” [adobe] on San Pedro Creek.

Moore and DePue’s 1878 Official Map of the County of San Mateo, California also shows the Whitney (1873) road through Rancho San Pedro. At the time, the APE and vicinity were owned by a “D. Mahoney” and “R. Tobin” (Robert Tobin).

Neuman's 1909 Official Map of San Mateo Co[unty] shows the Ocean Shore Railroad track along the coast, west side of the sinuous coast road through the vicinity of the APE, part of which may conform portions of the APE. Green Valley is shown within property owned by “M.A. Tobin.”

The 1896 USGS San Mateo topographic map, surveyed in 1892, appears to show a very sinuous road though the mountainous study area, portions of which may conform portions of the APE. The Green Valley canyon is not labeled, although Green Creek appears to be shown. At the time, a structure may have been present in the vicinity of the “abandoned farm” (e.g., Jackson and Dietz 1970/form) near Station 37+00 (Trail Segment 4). The 1915 USGS topographic map, shows the “Ocean Shore” Railroad Company tracks and Green Canon. This railroad stop where the tracks and road appear to coalesce appears to conform to the southern end of the APE allowing access to the beach opposite. The 1942 US War Department topographic map shows Highway 1 just west of the APE and an unpaved sinuous road, part of which may conform to portions of the APE. Green Canon/Valley is not labeled on this map. The 1980 USGS topographic map (1956 photorevised) shows and labels Green Valley with a paved road from the

15 The 1866 and 1880 maps were not among the maps reviewed.


October 2015

18

present-day lower parking area of Gray Whale Cove northeasterly to a cluster of buildings, on the south side of intermittent Green Creek (not labeled). In addition, the configuration of nearby Highway 1 had been modified.

5.0 PRE-FIELD IDENTIFICATION EFFORT

A prehistoric and historic site record and literature search was completed by the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 15-0396 dated 9/17/2015 by Hagel). Specialized listings for cultural resources consulted include:

National Historic Landmarks (NHL) and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listings in San Mateo County, California (USNPS 2015).

Historic Properties Directory for San Mateo County (CAL/OHP 2012a) with the most recent updates of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest as well as other evaluations of properties reviewed by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation.

Archeological Determinations of Eligibility for Santa Clara County (CAL/OHP 2012b).

California History Plan (CAL/OHP 1973).

California Inventory of Historic Resources (CAL/OHP 1976).

Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (CAL/OHP 1988).

California Historical Resources –San Mateo County [including National Register, State Landmark, California Register, and Point of Interest] (CAL/OHP 2015).

Local lists, inventories and plans (SMa/DEM/PD 1980; Brabb et al. 1982; SMa/DEM 1986; Dietz n.d./SMACo/ESA/PBD 1999).

Limited historic topographic and plan view maps (Brown n.d.; Lewis 1859; Easton 1868; Whitney 1873; Moore and DePue 1878a-b; Neuman 1909; Nelson ca. 1912; Ocean Shore Railroad (?) 1913; Hendry and Bowman 1940; USGS 896 [surveyed 1892]; 1915 [cultural revised in part 1914]; 1980 [1956 photorevised , 1997; US War 1942 [photography 1939, topography 1941]).

Ms. Johanna (Josie) Twigg (M.Sc.) conducted a systematic field inventory of the trail project on September 9, 2015.

5.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 15-0396)

Two previous cultural resources compliance studies have been completed that include the trail project. No prehistoric or combined prehistoric or historic era sites have been recorded or reported in or adjacent to the proposed project APE.

5.1A Compliance Reports

Two cultural resource compliance reports on file with the CHRIS/NWIC include the project.


October 2015

19

An Archaeological and Historical Reconnaissance of a Portion of the San Mateo County Coastside (Dietz and Jackson 1970) appears to include the APE and was responsible for the recording of CA-SMA-129 (P-41-000131), the single prehistoric archaeological site located within 0.25 miles west of the APE on the coast. None of the extensive listing of archaeological and/or historical resources presented in the document are located within or adjacent to the to the Green Valley Trail Project.

Supplemental Historic Properties Survey Report, Devil’s Slide Improvement Project in San Mateo County, State Route 1 (Hylkema and Fitzgerald 2000), includes the majority of the APE only excluding the southernmost portion from about PM 55+00 to 57+58 (part Segment 5) and the upper parking area for Gray Whale Cove State Beach. This report was negative for resources within or adjacent to the Green Valley Trail Project.

5.1B Recorded and/or Reported Sites

No prehistoric or combined prehistoric or historic era sites have been recorded or reported in or adjacent to the proposed project APE. One prehistoric archaeological site is recorded 0.25 miles to the west of the project.

P-41-000056 (CA-SMA-129), Nelson Mound #402 has been recorded within 0.25 miles to the west. It is described as ". . . a badly disturbed shell midden on a small coastal terrace” located at Grey Whale Cove “. . . on the terrace above the cove and just south of the mouth of Green Valley Creek. Highway 1 is ca. 66 meters to the east” (Jackson and Dietz 1970/form; Hines et al. 1986/form; Hutcheson 2015).

5.1C Listed Historic Properties

No local, state or federal historically or architecturally significant structures, landmarks, or points of interest have been identified within or adjacent to the project.

The former State Parks building(s) previously used for employee housing, outside of the trail alignment, has been reviewed by the agency and determined not to be a historic resource (Mark Hylkema, RPA, Santa Cruz District Archaeologist & Tribal Liaison, California State Parks, personal communication, September 2015).

5.1D Archaeological Sensitivity

The proposed trail appears to have a very low sensitivity for buried archaeological resources. This estimate of sensitivity is based its location within/adjacent to the steep slopes associated with Green Valley; recorded and/or reported archaeological sites within the APE or immediately adjacent areas (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 15-0396); the lack of reported Native American cultural resources (Pilas-Treadway 2015); and, the absence of any reported cultural resources found during the previous archaeological inventories. The closest archaeological resource to the project, Nelson Mound #402 (P-41-000056/CA-SMA-129), is located within 0.25 miles to the west of the western boundary of the trail project.


October 2015

20

6.0 INDIVIDUALS, GROUP AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted in regard to resources listed on the Sacred Lands Inventory (Busby 2015a). The NAHC responded that their record search of the sacred lands file failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area (Pilas-Treadway 2015). Letters were sent to nine locally knowledgeable Native American individuals/organizations identified by the NAHC (Busby 2015b-j) (see Attachments) followed by telephone and/or email contact.

Four Native Americans responded while detailed messages were left for five with no responses as of the time of report submission. Three Native Americans recommended cultural resources sensitivity training for the construction crews and the retention of both qualified Archaeologists and Native American monitors in the event of an unexpected discovery (Zwierlein, Zimmer, Sayers). Mr. Andrew Galvan, The Ohlone Tribe, had no immediate concerns but recommended appropriate measures if Native American materials are exposed. (see Attachments).

No other local historical societies, planning departments, etc. were contacted regarding landmarks, potential historic sites or structures in or adjacent to the project.

7.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INVENTORY

An archaeological field inventory of the trail project was completed September 9, 2015 by Ms. Johanna (Josie) Twigg (M.Sc.) an archaeologist meeting the standards of the Secretary of the Interior.

The survey was conducted from south (parking area) to north. The project area is comprised of a dirt/gravel parking area, a dirt/gravel former road (Trail Segment 5), single track dirt trial (Trail Segment 4, 3 and the existing portions of 2A and 2B), a steep hill slope covered in vegetation and landscaping (the proposed portions of Trail Segments 2A, 2B and 2C), and a gravel road and adjacent highway shoulder (trail segment 1 and adjacent areas). Field transects varied across the APE as dictated by terrain. Surface visibility varied within the project area with good visibility from 100-85% in the parking area, former road, current gravel road to fair 65% along the more over grown single track trail and landscape hillside to poor 5-0% along the heavily vegetated areas on the hillsides and adjacent to the trail. Vegetation includes scrub brush, poison oak, grasses, ferns, pine, ice plant, pampas grass and mustard. Observed sediments consist of a light reddish brown to light brown friable sandy silt with some angular gravel. Three drainages were crossed by means of highly colored/decorated plywood boards/doors, drainages all contained water to varying degrees and were thickly vegetated. Both the Caltrans gravel access road to the Caltrans Operations & Maintenance Facility along the north part of the trail (from/to State Highway 1) and road to former housing near Trail Segment 4 have metal gates at the ingress points preventing unauthorized entry.

No evidence of prehistoric or historically significant archaeological resources or ecofactual materials was observed during the survey conducted for the proposed project.

Trail Segment Descriptions [Figs. 5-16]

Parking Area: The upper parking area for Gray Whale Cove is a level, rutted dirt area


October 2015

21

with a light gravel cover used for parking area bounded by a hill slope, with the upslope vegetated by grasses, scrub and pines and the down slope by ice plant. Field transects were walked east to west at approximately 10-15 foot intervals. Surface visibility was good ranging from 90-100%. A pile of imported rounded river cobbles is located at the eastern end of the lot below a large pine. The cobbles appear to have been part of a drainage system, a fragment of concrete with a small section of embedded pipe was noted adjacent to the cobbles [Figs. 5-6].

Trail Segment 5 and Adjacent Staging Area: Trail Segment 5, the road from the parking area to the former State Parks employee housing, is an approximate 10-foot wide dirt road with light gravel. The former road is bounded by hills and vegetation. Field transects were walked generally north to south, following the curve of the road at approximately 3-5 foot intervals. Surface visibility was good from 85-100% along the road and poor 0-10% along the heavily vegetated margins. Two piles of lumber of varying sizes were observed adjacent to the road [Figs. 7-8].

Trail Segment 4: At the site of the former State Parks employee housing, the trail becomes a poorly maintained single track trail approximately 1.5-3.0 feet wide bounded by dense vegetation, and at times overgrown. The single drainage is crossed by means of an ad-hoc plywood bridge. Water was present in drainage along with dense vegetation. Field transects were walked generally north to south, following the curvature of the trail at approximately 1-3 ft intervals, visibility was good from 65-90% along the trail and poor 0-5% along the heavily vegetated margins. A small aluminum trailer and a collapsed/fallen structure were noted near the former State Parks housing alongside the trail. The structure was constructed of wooden planks of varying sizes, plywood sheeting, metal fittings and round headed nails [Figs. 9-12].

Trail Segment 3 and Existing Portions of 2A and 2B: This segment of the consists of a poorly maintained single track trail approximately 1.5-3.0 ft wide bounded by dense vegetation. The two drainages within the segments have an ad-hoc plywood bridge. Water was present in the drainages along with dense riparian vegetation. Field transects were walked generally east to west, following the curvature of the trail at approximately 1-3 ft intervals, surface visibility was good from 65-90% along the trail and poor 0-5% along the heavily vegetated margins [Figs. 13-14].

Trail Segments 2A, 2B (new segments) and 2C: The proposed alignments for the new portions of the 2A and 2B and the western half of 2C cross the Caltrans Devil's Slide fill disposal site, an engineered slope. The eastern portion of 2C is steep and vegetated with dense, scrubby brush making access and survey difficult. The area includes a drainage with a proposed new bridge or boardwalk crossing the drainage (Note: this alignment is not included on the APE/Engineering map but is included on the trail segment aerial). Field transects were walked generally east to west, 10-30 ft intervals, surface visibility was fair 65% along landscape hillside and poor 5-0% in the more densely vegetated eastern portions [Fig. 15].

Trail Segment 1, Caltrans Access Road and Adjacent Staging Area: This segment consists of part of the shoulder of State Highway 1- a graveled road along the highway bounded by an approximately 3-foot tall concrete wall and by the reinforced (faux-rock) face of the slope along the hillside. The survey transects within Trail Segment 1 and the


October 2015

22

partly adjacent Caltrans access road below the steep hill slope and staging area used 3-5 foot wide intervals generally east to west along access road and north to south along shoulder of State Highway 1. Surface visibility was good, 95-100%. The surface of the Caltrans Access Road is heavily graveled with a rock filled drainage feature running alongside the road, below it to the south. A large drainage feature is also present where the Caltrans Access Road meets the shoulder of State Highway 1. This feature is an extension of an imported gravel drainage feature along the western crest of the hillside of the previous section’s erosion controls.

8.0 FINDINGS

This document was prepared to identify historic properties which may be listed, determined or potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP in or immediately adjacent to Green Valley Trail Project.

No historic properties (including archaeological sites, built environment or other resources) have been recorded within or immediately adjacent to the project APE.

One prehistoric archaeological site, P-41-000056 (CA-SMA-129), Nelson Mound #402 has been recorded within 0.25 miles west of the project APE. It has not been evaluated for the NRHP or other register.

Two cultural resource compliance report on file with the CHRIS/NWIC include the project area (Dietz and Jackson 1970/S-3082; Hylkema and Fitzgerald 2000/S-29219). Both are negative for historic properties including potential resources within or adjacent to the APE.

No known ethnographic, traditional or contemporary Native American use areas and/or other features of cultural significance have been identified in or adjacent to the APE.

No known potential Hispanic Era archaeological resources (e.g., adobe dwellings or other structures, features, wharves, etc.) have been reported in or adjacent to the APE

No American Period archaeological sites have been recorded or reported in or adjacent to the APE.

No evidence of prehistoric or historically significant archaeological resources was observed during the field inventory conducted for the proposed project.

No local, state or federal historically or architecturally significant structures, landmarks, or points of interest have been identified within or adjacent to the project APE.

The former State Parks building, previously used for employee housing is outside of the proposed trail alignment APE, has been reviewed by the agency and determined not to be a historic resource.

A very low potential for buried prehistoric archaeological resources is suggested by the archival data, field inventory, local geology and soils. In addition, the completion of a new trail through the Devil's Slide Tunnel waste disposal area has no potential to expose


October 2015

23

subsurface cultural resources.

9.0 FINDING OF EFFECT

A good faith effort to identify historic properties listed, determined, or potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP (36 CFR Part 800.4) within or immediately adjacent to the project APE pursuant to the NHPA of 1966 (as amended) (54 U.S.C. § 306108) and its implementing regulations 36 CFR Part 800 was completed. The identification effort included a records search, literature review, consultation with local Native Americans, and a field inventory. No NRHP listed, determined or potentially eligible resources are present within or adjacent to the APE.

The regulations implementing Section 106 define an effect as any action that would alter the characteristics of the property that may qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP and, diminish the integrity of a property's location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling or association (36 CFR Part 800.5(a)(1-2)). A determination of No Historic Properties Affected is applicable since no properties are within or adjacent to the APE that are listed, eligible or appear to be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

10.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND POST-REVIEW DISCOVERY PROCEDURES

No mitigation measures are required. The proposed undertaking will not affect any NRHP listed, determined or potentially eligible properties. In the event of post-review discoveries of cultural resources,16 the Corps shall be notified so that these discoveries may be treated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.13(b). The exposure of any Native American burials shall be handled in accordance with state law.

16. Significant prehistoric cultural materials may include: a. Human bone - either isolated or intact burials. b. Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors). c. Artifacts including chipped stone objects such as projectile points and bifaces; groundstone artifacts such as manos, metates, mortars, pestles, grinding stones, pitted hammerstones; and, shell and bone artifacts including ornaments and beads. d. Various features and samples including hearths (fire-cracked rock; baked and

vitrified clay), artifact caches, faunal and shellfish remains (which permit dietary reconstruction), distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy indicative of prehistoric activities.

e. Isolated artifacts

Significant historic cultural materials may include finds from the late 19th through early 20th centuries. Objects and features associated with the Historic Period can include:

a. Structural remains or portions of foundations (bricks, cobbles/boulders, stacked field stone, postholes, etc.).

b. Trash pits, privies, wells and associated artifacts. c. Isolated artifacts or isolated clusters of manufactured artifacts (e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured wood items, etc.). d. Human remains.

In addition, cultural materials including both artifacts and structures that can be attributed to Hispanic, Asian and other ethnic or racial groups are potentially significant. Such features or clusters of artifacts and samples include remains of structures, trash pits, and privies.


October 2015

24

11.0 REFERENCES CITED AND CONSULTED

Allen, Rebecca (editor) 1999 Upgrade of the Guadalupe Parkway, San Jose. Historic Properties Treatment

Plan. MS on file, S-22066, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Banks, P.M. and R.I. Orlins 1979 Final Report of the Testing of Cultural Resources within the Wildcat and San

Pablo Creeks Flood Control and Water Resources Project, Contra Costa County, California. MS on file, S-1768, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

1985 Final Report: Limited Archaeological Investigations at CA-CCo-299, the Stege Mound, Contra Costa County. MS on file, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Bean, Lowell John (compiler and editor) 1994 The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay

Region. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 42, Menlo Park.

Beardsley, R.K. 1948 Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. American Antiquity

14:1-29.

1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. University of California Survey Reports 24 and 25.

Beck, W.A. and Y.D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of California (Third printing, 1977). University of Oklahoma

Press, Norman.

Bennyhoff, James A. 1977 Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at

Davis Publication 5.

Bennyhoff, James A. and David A. Fredrickson 1994 Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology:

Essays (edited by Richard E. Hughes). Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52.

Bennyhoff, James A. and Richard E. Hughes 1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks between California and the

Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 64 (Part 2).


October 2015

25

Brabb, E.E., F.A. Taylor and G.P. Miller with the cooperation of San Mateo County Planning Department, San Mateo County Historical Association and San Mateo County Historic-Resources Advisory Board

1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California. Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1257-B. Scale 1:62,500. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, n.p.

Brabb, E.E., Graymer, R.W., and Jones, D.L., 1998 Geology of the onshore part of San Mateo County, California: a digital

database: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-98-137, scale 1:62500. [As cited by Peters 2015:Memorandum.]

Broughton, Jack M. 1996 Nels C. Nelson's Final Report. Excavation of the Emeryville Shellmound,

1906 [CA-Ala-309]. Transcribed and Prefaced by Jack M. Broughton. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 54.

Brown, A.K. n.d. [Map.] The Peninsula in Mission Days Under the Kingdom of Spain 1776-

1822. In South from San Francisco: San Mateo County, California: Its History and Heritage, in Frank M. Stanger, 1963, p. 21, San Mateo County Historical Association, San Mateo, California.

1973-1974 Indians of San Mateo County. La Peninsula: Journal of the San Mateo County Historical Association 17(4).

1975 Place Names of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Historical Association, College of San Mateo Campus, San Mateo.

Busby, Colin I. (Basin Research Associates, San Leandro) 2015a Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory – Green Valley Trail, San

Mateo County. Dated September 15, 2015.

2015b-j Letters to Jakki Kehl, Patterson; Linda G. Yamane, Seaside; Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson, Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Woodside; Michelle Zimmer, Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Woodside;; Tony Cerda, Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Pomona; Ann Marie Sayers, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Hollister; Rosemary Cambra, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, Milpitas; Andrew Galvan, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Fremont; Ramona Garibay, Representative, Trina Marine Ruano Family, Union City. Regarding: Request for Information, Green Valley Trail Project, San Mateo County. Dated September 22, 2015.

California (State of), Office of Historic Preservation (CAL/OHP) 1973 The California History Plan, Volume One - Comprehensive Preservation

Program. Volume Two - Inventory of Historic Features.


October 2015

26

1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources.

1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California.

1990 California Historical Landmarks [with updates].

1992 California Points of Historical Interest [with updates].

2001 California State Law and Historic Preservation: Statutes, Regulations and Administrative Policies Regarding Historic Preservation and Protection of Cultural and Historical Resources. Technical Assistance Series 10.

2012a [Historic Properties Directory] Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data file for San Mateo County (includes National Register of Historic Places status codes, California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest listings, etc.). Dated 4/12/2012. [most recent as of 9/17/2015].

2012b Archeological Determinations of Eligibility for San Mateo County. Dated 4/05/2012 [most recent as of 9/17/2015].

2015 California Historical Resources – San Mateo County [including National Register, State Landmark, California Register, and Point of Interest]. <http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=41> (accessed 9/09/2015).

California Coastal Commission 1999 Public Access Action Plan. Adopted by the Coastal Commission in June 1999.

California (State of), Department of Parks and Recreation (CAL/Parks) 2015 Montara State Beach. http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=532 (accessed

9/8/2015).

California (State of), Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 1999 SEIR/SEIS Devil’s Slide Improvement Project in San Mateo County, State

Route 1, KP 54.7/66.0 (PM 34.0/41.0) 94-210-112371.

2005 Devils Slide Final Public Access Implementation Plan. May.

Chew, Susan and Barbara Riddle 1971 Chronology of Historic Contacts. In Contributions to the Archaeology of San

Mateo County I: Introduction, Prior Archaeological Work in the San Francisco Bay Region. San Francisco State College Treganza Anthropology Museum Papers 8:8-10.

Clark, Matthew R. (Holman & Associates) 2002 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Pacifica Village Center Project Area in the

City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California with Recommendations for Resource Management. MS on file, S-25067, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.


October 2015

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=532

27

Dietz, S.A. n.d. Historic Sites Master List for San Mateo County. MS on file, CHRIS/NWIC,

Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.

Dietz, S.A. and T.L. Jackson 1970 An Archaeological and Historical Reconnaissance of a Portion of the San

Mateo County Coastside. Robert E. Schenk Archives of California Archaeology, Number 6. Treganza Anthropology Museum, San Francisco State College. MS on file, S-3082, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Easton, A.S. 1868 Official Map of the County of San Mateo, California. Including City and

County of San Francisco with All New Additions of Cities, Towns, and Villas, Delineating the Lines of Ranchos, Private Claims, Water Works, Railroads, etc. etc. Carefully compiled from actual surveys and Published by A.S. Easton, County Surveyor, S.M.C. Britton and Rey, San Francisco. Reproductions of map available from San Mateo County Historical Association Museum, San Mateo.

Elsasser, Albert B. 1978 Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In California, edited by R.F.

Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 37-57. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Fickewirth, Alvin A. 1992 California Railroads: An Encyclopedia of Cable Car, Common Carrier,

Horsecar, Industrial Interurban, Logging, Monorail, Motor Road, Short Lines, Streetcar, Switching and Terminal Railroad in California (1851-1992). Golden West Books, San Marino.

Fredrickson, D.A. 1994 Spatial and Cultural Units in Central California Archaeology. In Toward a

New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 25-47. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52.

Fredrickson, David A. 1966 CCo-308: The Archaeology of a Middle Horizon site in Interior Contra Costa

County, California. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

1968 Archaeological Investigations at CCo-30 near Alamo, Contra Costa County. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, No. 1.


October 2015

28

1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41-53.

1994a Archaeological Taxonomy in Central California Reconsidered. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by Richard E. Hughes. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52.

1994b Spatial and Cultural Units in Central California Archaeology. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 25-47. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52.

Galvan, P.M. 1967/1968 People of the West: The Ohlone Story. Indian Historian 1(2):9-13.

Google Earth Pro 1948 Aerial view. Image date 9/25/1948. Accessed 3/2013.

Hagel, Lisa C. (CHRIS/NWIC staff) 2015 Records Search Results. Regarding: Green Valley [Trail Project, San Mateo

County, CA]. CHRIS/NWIC File. No. 15-0396. Dated September 17, 2015. On file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.

Harrington, J.P. 1942 Culture Element Distributions: XIX Central California Coast. University of

California Anthropological Records 7(1).

Harris, Cecily (Development Consultant) 2015 Memorandum to County of San Mateo Parks and Recreation Commission.

Agenda Item 5.C Commission Meeting Date June 4, 2015. Web – 5C-Green-Valley-Trail-Update.pdf accessed 9/8/2015.

Hart, J.D. 1987 A Companion to California (New edition, revised and expanded). University

of California Press, Berkeley.

Hendry, G.W. and J.N. Bowman 1940 The Spanish and Mexican Adobe and Other Buildings in the Nine San

Francisco Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850 (including map of San Mateo County). MS on file, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

Hill, Ward 2009 Historical Resources Evaluation Report Route 1/Calera Parkway Project,

Between Fassler Avenue And Reina del Mar Avenue, San Mateo County 04-SMA-1 PM 41.7 to 43.0 Caltrans EA 04-25460K. Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.


October 2015

29

Hines, P. B. Rivers, and T. Wheeler (California Department of Parks and Recreation) 1986 Archaeological Site Record form supplement, CA-SMa-129 (P-41-000056).

On file, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Holman, Miley P. and Matthew R. Clark 1982 Cultural Resource Evaluation of Keller Ranch, Clayton, California. MS on

file, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Hoover, M.B., H.E. Rensch and E.G. Rensch 1966 Historic Spots in California (Third edition). Revised by William N. Abeloe.

Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Hughes, Richard E. (editor) 1994 Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology:

Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52.

Hunter, Chris 2004 Images of Rail: Ocean Shore Railroad. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago.

Hunter, Chris, Bill Drake and the Pacifica Historical Society 2002 Images of America: Pacifica. Arcadia Publishing, Chicago.

Hutcheson, Charles C. (CHRIS/NWIC staff) 2015 Metadata Sheet. P-41-000056, CA-SMA-00052. [P-41-000131, CA-SMA-

000129, both assigned to Nelson 402; retained P-41-000131, CA-SMA-000129 and modified map location.] Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.

Hylkema, Mark G. 1991 Prehistoric Native American Adaptations along the Central Coast of San

Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties. M.A. thesis, San Jose State University. Coyote Press, Salinas. MS on file, S-13597, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

2002 Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L. Jones, Perspectives in California Archaeology 6:233-262.

Hylkema, Mark G. and Richard T. Fitzgerald (California Department of Transportation District 4) (Caltrans)

2000 Supplemental Historic Properties Survey Report, Devil’s Slide Improvement Project in San Mateo County, State Route 1, KP 54.7/66.0 (PM 34.0/41.0) 94-210-112371. MS on file, S-29219, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.


October 2015

30

Hynding, A. 1982 From Frontier to Suburb, The Story of The San Mateo Peninsula. Star

Publishing Company, Belmont.

Jackson, Thomas L. 1971 Contributions to the Archaeology of San Mateo County. II: An Archaeological

Reconnaissance of a Portion of the San Mateo County Coastside. San Francisco State College Treganza Anthropology Museum Papers 8:11-20.

Jackson [T.L.] and [S.A.] Dietz 1970 Archaeological Site Record form, CA-SMa-129 (P-41-000056) [Nelson 402;

former CA-SMA-52]. On file, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Jones, Terry L. and Kathryn A. Klar (editors) 2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Altamira Press,

a division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York with the Society for California Archaeology.

King, Chester D. 1974 Modern Santa Clara Ethno-Geography. In Archaeological Element

Environmental Impact Report on the San Felipe Water Distribution System, edited by T.F. King and G. Berg, Appendix I. MS on file, E-108/S-4248, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

1977 Matalan Ethnohistory. In Final Report of Archaeological Test Excavations of Freeway 04-SCl-101, Post Mile 17.2/29.4, Cochrane Road to Ford Road, edited by S.A. Dietz. MS on file, E-265/S-4395, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

1978a Protohistoric and Historic Archaeology. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W. G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 58-68. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1978b Historic Indian Settlements in the Vicinity of the Holiday Inn Site. In Archaeological Investigations at CA-SCl-128, the Holiday Inn Site, edited by J.C. Winter. MS on file, E-756/S-5281, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

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

Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Kyle, Douglas E. 1990 Historic Spots in California (Fourth edition of M.B. Hoover, H.E. Rensch and

E.G. Rensch). Stanford University Press, Stanford.


October 2015

31

Levy, R. 1976 Costanoan Internal Relationships. Non-serial Publications, University of

California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.

1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 485-497. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Lewis, William J. 1859 Plat of the Rancho San Pedro finally confirmed to Francisco Sanchez.

Surveyed under instructions from the U.S. Surveyor General. Sept[ember] & Dec[ember 1859. Containing 8.926 46/100 acres. Map on file, #164, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento.

Lightfoot, Kent G. 1997 Cultural Construction of Coastal Landscapes: A Middle Holocene Perspective

from San Francisco Bay. In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, edited by J.M. Erlandson and M.A. Glassow. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 4.

Lillard, J.B., Robert F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior

College, Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 2.

Margolin, Malcom 1978 The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco - Monterey Bay Area.

Heyday Books, Berkeley.

Meyer, Jack and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal 1997 Archaeological and Geoarchaeological Investigations at Eight Prehistoric Sites

in the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Area, Contra Costa County, California. Los Vaqueros Project Final Report #7. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University Academic Foundation, Inc., Rohnert Park. MS on file, S-20072, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Milliken, Randall 1979a Chapter 2: The Mission Outstation of San Pedro and San Pablo. In Report of

Archaeological Investigations at Sanchez Adobe Park Historic District by Stephen A. Dietz, pp. 14-37. MS on file, S-5396, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

1979b Appendix 2: The Ohlone-Speaking People of Pruristac. In Report of Archaeological Investigations at Sanchez Adobe Park Historic District by Stephen A. Dietz, pp. 175-189. MS on file, S-5396, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

1983 The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California's San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Unpublished M.A. thesis,


October 2015

32

Department of Inter-Disciplinary Studies, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43.

1996 The Founding of Mission Dolores and the End of Tribal Life on the Northern San Francisco Peninsula. California Mission Studies Association, n.p.

2006 The Central California Ethnographic Community Distribution Model, Version 2.0, with Special Attention to the San Francisco Bay Area. Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 4 Rural Conventional Highways. Submitted to Caltrans District 4, Oakland. Contract No. 447600 EA No. 04A2098. MS on file, S-32596, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Milliken, Randall T. and James A. Bennyhoff 1993 Temporal Changes in Beads as Prehistoric California Grave Goods. In The

Grows a Green Tree: Papers in Honor of David A. Fredrickson, edited by Greg White, Pat Mikkelsen, William R. Hildebrandt and Mark E. Basgall, pp. 381-395. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication 11.

Milliken, Randall, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Thomas Origer, David G. Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellefemine, Eric, Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson

2007 Chapter 8. Punctuated Change in San Francisco Bay Area [Prehistory]. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 99-123. Altamira Press, a division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York with the Society for California Archaeology.

Milliken, R.T. and Steve Sanchez 1979 Appendix 1: Excerpts from the Annual Reports of Mission Dolores

Concerning the Outpost at San Pedro. In Report of Archaeological Investigations at Sanchez Adobe Park Historic District by Stephen A. Dietz, pp. 164-174. MS on file, S-5396, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Moore and DePue 1878a The Illustrated History of San Mateo County, California. Moore & DePue,

publishers. Reduced facsimile, 1974 with an Introduction by Gilbert Richards Publications, Woodside.

1878b Official Map of the County of San Mateo, California. Moore & DePue, publishers.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.


October 2015

33

Moratto, Michael J. and Balbir Singh 1971 Contributions to the Archaeology of San Mateo County. I: Introduction, Prior

Archaeological Work in the San Francisco Bay Region. San Francisco State College Treganza Anthropology Museum Papers 8:1-8.

Nelson, Nels C. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California

Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4).

ca. 1912 Map of San Francisco Bay Region showing Distribution of Shell Heaps and numbered to correspond with transcribed field notes [with Nelson Numbers]." Manuscript Map #35, University of California Archaeological Survey Files (as cited in Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 75:83) [University of California Museum of Anthropology Manuscript Map, No. 13-1065].

Neuman, J.V. (compiled and drawn by) 1909 Official Map of San Mateo Co., California.

Ocean Shore Railroad (?) 1913 Ocean Shore Railroad route map. Courtesy of San Mateo County Historical

Association. In Granada, A Synonym for Paradise: The Ocean Shore Railroad Years, 1992, page 36 by Barbara VanderWerf, Gum Tree Lane Books, El Granada.

Peters, Jeffery H. (Questa Engineering Corporation) 2015 Initial Study Green Valley Trail Project, San Mateo County. Prepared by

Jeffrey H. Peters, Principal. July.

Peters, J., W. Hopkins, and S. Temple (Questa Engineering Corporation) 2015 Memorandum to Cecily Harris, Development Consultant, San Mateo County

Parks Dept., Redwood City, CA. Regarding Geotechnical Report for Green Valley Creek [Trail], Montara, CA. Dated April 21.2015. https://parks.smcgov.org/green-valley-trail-project , GVT-Geotechnical-Study (accessed 9/08/2015).

Pampeyan, E.H. 1981 Geologic map of the Montara Mountain quadrangle, San Mateo County,

California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-81-451, scale 1:12000.

1994 Geologic map of the Montara Mountain and San Mateo 7.5' quadrangles, San Mateo County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2390, scale 1:24000.

Pilas-Treadway, Debbie (Native American Heritage Commission) (NAHC) 2015 Letter to Colin I. Busby, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro. Regarding:

Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory, Green Valley Trail, San Mateo County. Dated September 22, 2015.


October 2015

https://parks.smcgov.org/green-valley-trail-project%20accessed%209/8/2015

34

QUESTA Engineering Corporation (QUESTA) 2015 [60% design plans] Green Valley Trail Project, San Mateo County. 23 Sheets,

various scales. Dated 8/04/2015

Richards, Gilbert 1973 Crossroads: People and Events of the Redwood of San Mateo County

[including pp. 88-89, list and map of 52 historic roads, places, etc.]. Gilbert Richards Publications, Woodside.

Robertson, Donald B. 1998 Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History. Volume IV California. The

Caxton Printers, Ltd, Caldwell, Idaho.

San Mateo County, Department of Environmental Management (SMa/DEM) 1986 General Plan. Part 5: Historical and Archaeological Resources. Background -

Issues. Including Appendix B Historical and Archaeological Resources and Appendix C Comprehensive Inventory of Coastal Resources. As Approved by the Board of Supervisors, November 18, 1986. [Current as of 5/17/2007.] http://wwww.co.sanmateo.ca.us/planning/documents.html ].

San Mateo County Parks 2014 Brochure. Devil’s Slide: A San Mateo County Regional Trail. March.

2015 Green Valley Trail Planning Project Workshop #1. Parks Commission. August 6, 2015.

2015 Web page – Green Valley Trail. https://parks.smcgov.org/green-valley-trail-project . Various including: Gvt_Trail_Segment_Map_0.pdf. GVT-Geotechnical-Study (accessed 9/8/2015).

San Mateo County, Department of Environmental Management, Planning Division (SMa/DEM/PD)

1980 Coastside Cultural Resources: An Approach to Development A Protection Program for the San Mateo County Coastal Zone. September.

San Mateo County, Environmental Services Agency, Planning and Building Division (SMaCo/ESA/PBD)

1999 Historic Sites Master List for San Mateo County [to accompany oversize map]. H-1 through H-223 "O". On file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.

Simons, Dwight

1992 Prehistoric Mammal Exploitation in the San Francisco Bay Area. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by T.L. Jones, pp. 73-103. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis 10.

Stanger, Frank M. 1963 South from San Francisco: San Mateo County, California: Its History and

Heritage. San Mateo County Historical Association, San Mateo, California.


October 2015



35

United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) 2015 Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of

Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service with the Regents of the University of California (Agricultural Experiment Station) (USDA/SCS)

1991 Soil Survey of San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California.

United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS) 1896 San Mateo, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series (1892

surveyed).

1915 San Mateo, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series (1892 surveyed, culture revised in part 1914).

1980 Montara Mountain, Calif.[Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series (1956 photorevised).

1997 Montara Mt., CA.[Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park (1956 photorevised).

United States Department of the Interior, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service (USNPS)

2015 National Register of Historic Places, Santa Clara County, California listings. http://www.nps.gov./nr/research/ nhl_links and nrph_ links accessed 9/9/2015.

United States War Department, Army Corps of Engineers (US War Dept) 1942 San Mateo, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series. Scale

1:62500. 29th Engineer Reproduction Plant, Portland (photography 1939, topography 1941).

VanderWerf, Barbara 1992 Granada, A Synonym for Paradise: The Ocean Shore Railroad Years.

VanderWerf, Gum Tree Lane Books, El Granada.

Walker, Mike 1997 Steam Powered Video's Comprehensive Railroad Atlas of North America.

California and Nevada (1994, completely revised and updated 1997). Steam Powered Publishing, Faversham, Kent [England].

Wiberg, Randy S. (Holman and Associates) 1996 Archaeological Excavations and Burial Removal at Sites CA-Ala-483, CA-

Ala-483 Extension, and CA-Ala-555, Pleasanton, Alameda County, California. MS S-17886, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.


October 2015

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://www.nps.gov./nr/research/


October 2015

36

Whitney, J.D. 1873 Map of the Region Adjacent to the Bay of San Francisco. State Geological

Survey of California, n.p. Facsimile on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.

Abbreviations n.d. no date v.d. various dates N.P. no publisher noted n.p. no place of publisher noted Note: The abbreviated phrase "CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park" is used for material on file at the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

ATTACHMENTS

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 General Project Location

FIGURE 2 Project Location (USGS Montara Mountain, CA 1997)

FIGURE 3 Trail Segments with Photo View Locations

FIGURE 4 Green Valley Trail Improvement Plan - Area of Potential Effects

FIGURE 5 Upper Parking Area from Hwy 1 - view east

FIGURE 6 Pile of imported river cobbles at eastern edge of Upper Parking Area

FIGURE 7 Trail Segment 5, view northeast along road to former housing

FIGURE 8 Trail Segment 5, view southwest across the southern end of project area

FIGURE 9 Trail Segment 4, former housing - view northeast

FIGURE 10 Trail Segment 4, drainage crossing - view north

FIGURE 11 Trail Segment 4, aluminum trailer adjacent to trail near former housing

FIGURE 12 Trail Segment 4, collapsed wooden structure near former housing - view east

FIGURE 13 Trail Segments 2 and 3, view north from Trail Segment 5

FIGURE 14 Trail Segment 3, view northwest along a typical section of single track trail

FIGURE 15 Trail Segment 2C, landscaping on slope - view northwest

FIGURE 16 View east across the northern end of the project area

CORRESPONDENCE

LETTER Request to Native American Heritage Commission

LETTER Response from Native American Heritage Commission

LETTER Letters to Native American Individuals and Groups Recommended by the Native American Heritage Commission

MEMO Record of Native American Contacts

CHRIS/NWIC SEARCH RESULTS

SEARCH 1 File No. 15-0396 dated September 17, 2015 (No Confidential Information)

ALAMEDA

MARIN

SANTA CLARA

CONTRA COSTA

SAN MATEO

SANTA CRUZ

SOLANOSONOMA NAPA

SAN SAN FRANCISCOFRANCISCOSAN FRANCISCO

+680

+280

+580

+80

+880

+780£¤101

¬«4

¬«1

¬«85

¬«92

¬«84

¬«24

¬«237

¬«13

¬«87

Sources: USGS, ESRI, TANA

¬«17

+580

£¤101

£¤101

+680

¬«1

Project Location

Figure 1: General Project Location

0

0 0

0

0

0

THIS MAP IS NOT A TRAIL GUIDEThis map is a preliminary planning tool and does not constitute anadopted Plan. Many of the routes or staging areas identified on thisMap are simply proposed for further study and are not open to thepublic for any purpose. This map does not convey any right to thepublic to use any trail routes shown, nor does it exempt any personfrom trespassing charges.

TRAIL SEGMENTSGREEN VALLEY TRAIL

Figure 3: Trail Segments with Photo View Locations

·|}þ1

Gray WhaleCove

PacificPacificPacificOceanOceanOcean

Caltrans O&MFacility

Former Housing

Upper Parking Area

Devil's SlideSouth Trailhead

Lower Parking Area

¬«2C

¬«1

·|}þ1

¬«3

4A¬«2A

4A¬«2B

¬«4

¬«5

,

,

, Future Connection to Existing Trails

Future Connection to Existing Trails

aaaaaaDevil's Slide TrailheadParking Area (Existing)

Legend

0 Trail Segment Endpoints

Existing Trail (Some trails cross private lands)

Existing Acces Road

New or Improved Trail Segment

New Bridge or Boardwalk

Green Valley Creek

¬«2 Trail Segment Number

Photo View Location

6

5

7

13

9

10

1112

148

15

16

Figure 4: Green Valley Trail Improvement Plan - Area of Potential Effects

Figure 5: Upper Parking Area from Hwy 1 - view east

Figure 6: Pile of imported river cobbles at eastern edge of Upper Parking Area

Figure 7: Trail Segment 5, view northeast along road to former housing

Figure 8: Trail Segment 5, view southwest across the southern end of project area

Figure 9: Trail Segment 4, former housing - view northeast

Figure 10: Trail Segment 4, drainage crossing - view north

Figure 11: Trail Segment 4, aluminum trailer adjacent to trail near former housing

Figure 12: Trail Segment 4, collapsed wooden structure near former housing - view east

Figure 13: Trail Segments 2 and 3, view north from Trail Segment 5

Figure 14: Trail Segment 3, view northwest along a typical section of single track trail

Figure 15: Trail Segment 2C, landscaping on slope - view northwest

Figure 16: View east across the northern end of the project area

Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

1556 Harbor Boulevard, STE 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691

(916) 373-3710 (916) 373-5471 – Fax

[email protected]

Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search

Project: Green Valley Trail

County: San Mateo

USGS Quadrangle Name: USGS Montara Mountain, CA 1997

Address: None - Green Valley east of Montara and Gray Whale Cove state beaches

Township: 4 South, Range: 6 West; unsectioned (former rancho).

Company/Firm/Agency: Basin Research Associates

Contact Person: Colin I. Busby, PhD, RPA

Street Address: 1933 Davis Street, STE 210

City/Zip: San Leandro, CA 94577

Phone: (510) 430-8441 x202

Fax: (510) 430-8443

Email: [email protected]

Project Description:

Green Valley Creek is a high gradient, intermittent creek that drains approximately 277 acres of brushy mountainous terrain near Montara Mountain and discharges indirectly into the Pacific Ocean about 0.5 mile south of the south portal of the Devil’s Slide Tunnel and east of Montara and Gray Whale Cove state beaches, San Mateo County. The proposed trail traverses the upper part of the middle reach of the creek as well as an unnamed seasonal tributary to Green Valley Creek similar to the upper steep gradient reach of Green Valley Creek. The trail will cross the creek and to minimize impacts to the stream channel and riparian ecosystem, a boardwalk or bridge is proposed to elevate trail users above the stream and wetlands. The Green Valley Trail will be designed for walking, horse use and mountain bike use and be composed of natural tread as much as possible.

Information will be used in a CEQA document for the Parks Department, San Mateo County and to support the issuance of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit due to the trail crossing various creeks and tributaries to Green Valley Creek.

9/15/15

Record of Native American Contacts Green Valley Trail Project, San Mateo County.

915/15 Email to Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Sacramento. Regarding: Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory for project.

9/22/15 Letter response by Debbie Pilas-Treadway, NAHC

6/30/15 Letters sent to all parties recommended by NAHC

Letters to Jakki Kehl, Patterson; Linda G. Yamane, Seaside; Irenne Zwierlein, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Woodside; Michelle Zimmer Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Woodside; Tony Cerda, Chairperson, Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Pomona; Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Hollister; Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Milpitas; Andrew Galvan, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Mission San Jose; and Ramona Garibay, Representative, Trina Marine Ruano Family, Lathrop.

10/20/15 Telephone calls and/or emails made by Basin Research Associates (Christopher Canzonieri) in the late morning to non-responding parties.

Jakki Kehl – called at 10:00 AM; unable to leave message.

Linda G. Yamane – called at 10:03 AM; left detailed message.

Irenne Zwierlein – called at 10:05 AM; Ms. Zwierlein recommends that all crew receive cultural resources sensitivity training. In the event of a discovery, the archaeologists should have experience with Northern and Central California archaeology and qualified and trained Native American monitors should be retained.

Michelle Zimmer – spoke with Ms. Zwierlein on her behalf; the recommendations are the same as above.

Tony Cerda – called at 10:08 AM; unable to leave a message.

Ann Marie Sayers – called at 10:11 AM; recommends that all crew receive cultural resources sensitivity training. In the event of a discovery, the archaeologists should have experience with Northern and Central California archaeology and qualified and trained Native American monitors should be retained.

Rosemary Cambra – called at 10:13 AM unable to leave message.

Andrew Galvan – called at 10:15 AM; Andy has no immediate concerns, but recommends that if something is encountered the proper measures should be implemented (i.e., contact County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission if Native American remains are exposed and follow recommendations).

Ramona Garibay – called at 10:16 AM; left a detailed message.

9/17/2015 NWIC File No.: 15-0396 Donna M. Garaventa Basin Research Associates 1933 Davis Street, Suite 210 San Leandro, CA 94577 re: Green Valley The Northwest Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Montara Mountain USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a 0.25 mile radius: Resources within project area: None

Resources within 0.25 mile radius: P-41-131.

Reports within project area:

S-29219 & 3082 (approximate location).

Reports within 0.25 mile radius: S-38121, 5819, & 8972.

Other Reports within records search radius:

S-848, 33041, 33600, 5537, 18217, 9462, 38120, 9583, 9580, 32596, 15529, & 13597. These reports are classified as Other Reports; reports with little or no field work or missing maps. The electronic maps do not depict study areas for these reports, however lists of these reports have been provided. In addition, you have not been charged any fees associated with these studies.

Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Resource Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Report Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Resource Record Copies: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Report Copies: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed

OHP Historic Properties Directory: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed

CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed

GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Shipwreck Inventory: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed

Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above. The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts. Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

*Notes:

Let us know if you need copies of any reports or the resource record. The invoice will be

kept open until 9/24/15.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). Sincerely, Lisa C. Hagel Researcher

Cultural Resources Report

Documents

Transcript of Cultural Resources Report