8 · Web view8.3 Cultural Resources Cultural resources are historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, historic architectural and engineering features and structures, and sites

8.3 Cultural ResourcesCultural resources are historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, historic architectural and engineering features and structures, and sites and resources of traditional cultural significance to Native Americans and other groups. Section 8.3.1 describes the cultural resources environment that might be affected by construction of the Metcalf Energy Center (MEC) and its plant site and linear corridor alternatives (gas lines, water lines and electrical transmission lines). Section 8.3.2 discusses the environmental consequences of construction of the proposed plant site and linear corridors. Section 8.3.3 determines if there any cumulative effects from the project and Section 8.3.4 presents mitigation measures that will be implemented to avoid impacts from construction of the proposed plant site and linear corridors. Section 8.3.5 discusses the laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS) applicable to the protection of cultural resources. Section 8.3.6 lists the agencies involved and agency contacts and Section 8.3.7 discusses permits and the permitting schedule. Section 9 of this AFC describes the environmental consequences associated with construction of the alternative plant sites and linear corridors.This cultural resources study determines whether cultural resources are present and could be affected adversely by Metcalf Energy Center project. The significance of any potentially affected resources is assessed and measures are proposed to mitigate potential adverse project effects. This study was directly supervised by Dr. James C. Bard (CH2M HILL), who meets the Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (National Park Service, 1983); the study was performed consistent with CEQA compliance procedures (Appendix K) and/or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) set forth at 36 CFR 800. This section of the AFC was prepared by Dr. Bard and Mr. Robin McClintock (CH2M HILL) with assistance from Dr. Colin I. Busby (Basin Research Associates, Inc.). The study scope was developed in consultation with the CEC’s cultural resources staff and complies with Instructions to the California Energy Commission Staff for the Review of and Information Requirements for an Application for Certification (CEC, 1992) and Rules of Practice and Procedure & Power Plant Site Certification Regulations (CEC, 1997).The regulatory framework for addressing cultural resources at the federal and state level include such criteria as: Eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as

set forth at 36 CFR 60.4 Definition of significance found in CEQA Appendix K for “important

archaeological resource” Draft criteria for resource eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of

Historic Resources (CRHR) With the exception of isolated artifacts or features that appear to lack integrity or potentially important information, all new cultural resource findings are treated as though they are eligible for the NRHP/CRHR.

SAC/150038/DOCUMENT.DOC 8.3-1

If possible, all recorded resources will be avoided completely. However, if avoidance is not possible through project redesign, the significance of the affected resources will be evaluated formally using NRHP/CRHP and/or CEQA criteria and guidelines. If a resource is determined to be significant, a data recovery program or some other appropriate mitigative effort will be undertaken in consultation with the CEC.The AHPA includes requirements to coordinate with the Secretary of the Interior for notification, data recovery, protection and/or preservation when a federally licensed project may cause the irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, or archaeological data. In 1983, the Secretary of the Interior established standards for gathering and treating data related to cultural resources in Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation.

8.3.1 Affected EnvironmentCultural resources are traces of human occupation and activity. In Northern California, cultural resources extend back in time for at least 11,500 years. Written historical sources tell the story of the past 200 years. Archaeologists have reconstructed general trends of prehistory. A cultural resources field inventory of the project area located potentially significant cultural resources within the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). Contact with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) did not result in the identification of traditional cultural properties in the project area.Previous cultural resource studies conducted within a 1.0-mile radius of MEC and its associated proposed and alternative corridors were reviewed. A discussion of the cultural resources sites in conflict with, or in potential conflict with, project elements (plant site, transmission lines, etc.) are addressed in Section 8.3.1.5.5. The following elements are included in MEC (see Figure 8.3-1a, b) and its APE:MEC Plant Site – approximately 14 acres and laydown area of approximately 20 acres)Proposed Access Road – a 0.25 mile-long new road corridor from Monterey Road (which crosses the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks) to the plant site.Alternative Access Road – a 0.76 mile-long new road corridor from Santa Teresa Boulevard (flanking Fisher Creek) to the plant site.Proposed Gas Line –a 0.99 mile-long (5,250 feet) corridor between the plant site and PG&E’s natural gas main pipeline using Segments 1 (2,000 feet), 3 (500 feet) and 4 (2,750 feet).Alternative Gas Line Segment 2 - a 0.34 mile-long (1,800 feet) corridor segment between the plant site and PG&E’s natural gas main pipeline.Alternative Gas Line Segment 5 -a 0.50 mile-long (2,625 feet) corridor segment between the plant site and PG&E’s natural gas main pipeline.Alternative Gas Line Segment 6 – a 0.91 mile-long (4,800 feet) corridor segment between the plant site and PG&E’s natural gas main pipeline.


Proposed Electric Transmission Line – a 0.05 mile-long (250 feet) corridor between the plant site and existing transmission lines just north of the proposed plant site (proposed transmission line).Alternative 1 Electric Transmission Line – a 0.28-mile-long (1,500 feet) corridor between the plant site and the existing PG&E Metcalf Substation.Domestic Water Line – a 1.25 mile-long (6,600 feet) corridor from Well #23 to the proposed plant site along the west side of the UPRR railroad tracks.Proposed Recycled Water Line – a 7.29-mile (38,500 feet) corridor consisting of segments A, H, and I (see below).Alternative Recycled Water Line – a 7.95-mile (42,000 feet) corridor consisting of segments A-1,D-1, G, and I (see below).Recycled Water Line Segments:A. 0.95 miles (5,000 feet); A-1. 0.47 miles (2,500 feet);B. 9.14 miles (48,250 feet);C. 0.76 miles (4,000 feet);D. 1.12 miles (5,900 feet);D-1. 0.28 miles (1,500 feet);E. 0.85 miles (4,500 feet);F. 0.99 miles (5,250 feet);G. 1.04 miles (5,500 feet);H. 0.19 miles (1,000 feet);I. 6.16 miles (32,500 feet);J. 6.16 miles (32,500 feet);K. 0.28 miles (1,500 feet);L. 0.30 miles (1,600 feet);M. 0.09 miles (500 feet);N. 0.55 miles (2,900 feet); and O. 0.50 miles (2,625 feet). Proposed Water Line route is A, H, and I (7.29 miles; 38,500 feet). The proposed Alternate Water Line route is A-1, D-1, G and I (7.95 miles; 42,000 feet).

8.3.1.1 Natural EnvironmentThe main project area is located at the northern end of a relatively narrow valley flanked on both the east and west by hilly ranges and is drained by Coyote Creek. This rural agricultural area is experiencing rapid light industrial development as the City of San Jose expands to the south. Large residential areas already exist to the northwest, just over Tulare Hill. The various recycled water line alternatives lie between the MEC project area and recently urbanized areas to the north (e.g., areas of south San Jose).MEC would be constructed at the base Tulare Hill, just where the valley narrows from the encroaching Yerba Buena Hills from the northeast and the Santa Teresa Hills (and Tulare Hill) from the west. Fisher Creek flows into Coyote Creek just a short distance to the northeast of MEC. As shown by recent archaeological research, the project area provided a favorable environment for human


occupation with riparian and inland resources readily available and the resources of the southern San Francisco bayshore in relatively close proximity. Sections 8.9 and 8.15 of this AFC provide detailed descriptions of regional soil conditions and geology. Some of the cultural resources in the area have been disturbed or eliminated by construction of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) as well as past agricultural practices. Several resources, however, remain relatively intact and the potential to discover additional resources buried beneath surficial Coyote Creek floodplain deposits is moderately high.

8.3.1.2 Prehistoric BackgroundThe Metcalf project area is situated in an archaeologically sensitive area with Coyote Creek and other seasonal water sources lying in close proximity. Watercourses were favored locations for prehistoric occupation in the Santa Clara Valley. From such spots, Native Americans could exploit a variety of ecological niches on the alluvial plain and foothills (Figure 8.3-2). Archaeologists believe that the population of the prehistoric San Francisco Bay Area slowly increased from the Early to the Late Horizon time periods (see below). The population increase is thought to reflect more efficient resource procurement, increased ability to store food at village locations, and the development of increasing political complexity.Prior to about 5000 to 7000 years ago, Native American occupation of the San Francisco Bay Area was intermittent and sparse. Evidence for early occupation along the bayshores was hidden by rising sea levels from about 15,000 to 7,000 years ago, or was buried under sediments caused by bay marshland infilling along estuary margins from about 7,000 years onward (cf. Moratto 1984). Early occupants concentrated on hunting and gathering various plant foods and collecting shellfish.A three-part cultural chronological sequence, the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS) was developed by archaeologists to explain local and regional cultural change in prehistoric central California from about 4,500 years ago to the time of European contact (cf. Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga, 1939 and Beardsley 1948, 1954). In 1969, several researchers met at UC Davis worked out several substantive taxonomic problems that had developed with the CCTS. Table 8.3-1 summarizes David Fredrickson’s (1994) cultural periods model and provides CCTS classification nomenclature (such as “Early Horizon,” etc).Moratto (1984) suggests the Early Horizon dated to circa 4,500 to 3,500/3,000 years ago with the Middle Horizon dating to circa 3,500 to 1,500 years ago and the Late Horizon dating to circa 1,500 to 250 years ago. The Early Horizon is the most poorly known of the period with relatively few sites known or investigated. Early Horizon traits include hunting, fishing, use of milling stones to process plant foods, use of a throwing board and spear (“atlatl”), relative absence of culturally affected soils (midden) at occupation sites, and elaborate burials with numerous grave offerings.Middle Horizon sites are more common and usually have deep stratified deposits that contain large quantities of ash, charcoal, fire-altered rocks, and fish, bird


and mammal bones. Significant numbers of mortars and pestles signal a shift to plant foods from reliance on hunted animal foods. Middle Horizon peoples generally buried their dead in a fetal position and only small numbers of graves contain artifacts (and these are most often utilitarian). Increased violence is suggested by the number of burials with projectile points embedded in the bones or with other marks of violence.The Late Horizon emerged from the Middle Horizon with continued use of many early traits and the introduction of several new traits. Late Horizon sites are the most common and are noted for their greasy soils (midden) mixed with bone and fire-altered rocks. The use of the bow-and-arrow, fetal-position burials, deliberately damaged (“killed”) grave offerings and occasional cremation of the dead are the best known traits of this horizon.

TABLE 8.3-1Hypothesized Characteristics of Cultural Periods in California

1800 A.D.Upper Emergent PeriodPhase 2, Late Horizon

Clam disk bead money economy appears. More and more goods moving farther and farther. Growth of local specializations relative to production and exchange. Interpenetration of south and central exchange systems.

1500 A.D.Lower Emergent PeriodPhase 1, Late Horizon

Bow and arrow introduced, replace atlatl and dart; south coast maritime adaptation flowers. Territorial boundaries well established. Evidence of distinctions in social status linked to wealth increasingly common. Regularized exchanges between groups continue with more material put into the network of exchanges.

1000 A.D.Upper Archaic PeriodMiddle HorizonIntermediate Cultures

Growth of sociopolitical complexity; development of status distinctions based on wealth. Shell beads gain importance, possibly indicators of both exchange and status. Emergence of group-oriented religious organizations; possible origins of Kuksu religious system at end of period. Greater complexity of exchange systems; evidence of regular, sustained exchanges between groups; territorial boundaries not firmly established.

500 B.C.Middle Archaic PeriodMiddle HorizonIntermediate Cultures

Climate more benign during this interval. Mortars and pestles and inferred acorn economy introduced. Hunting important. Diversification of economy; sedentism begins to develop, accompanied by population growth and expansion. Technological and environmental factors provide dominant themes. Changes in exchange or in social relations appear to have little impact.

3000 B.C.Lower Archaic PeriodEarly HorizonEarly San Francisco BayEarly Milling Stone Cultures

Ancient lakes dry up as a result of climatic changes; milling stones found in abundance; plant food emphasis, little hunting. Most artifacts manufactured of local materials; exchange similar to previous period. Little emphasis on wealth. Social unit remains the extended family.

6000 B.C.Upper Paleo-Indian PeriodSan DieguitoWestern Clovis8000 B.C.

First demonstrated entry and spread of humans into California; lakeside sites with a probable but not clearly demonstrated hunting emphasis. No evidence for a developed milling technology, although cultures with such technology may exist in state at this time depth. Exchange probably ad hoc on one-to-one basis. Social unit (the extended family) not heavily dependent on exchange; resources acquired by changing habitat.


Acorn and seed gathering dominated the subsistence pattern with short and long-distance trade carried out to secure various raw materials. Compared to earlier peoples, Late Horizon groups were short in stature with finer bone structure; evidence perhaps of the replacement of original Hokan speaking settlers by Penutian speaking groups by circa 1,500 years ago.Another scheme proposed by Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984) is also used by archaeologists; its features are summarized in Table 8.3-2.

TABLE 8.3-2The Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984) Model of Cultural Periods in California

Pre-Archaic Period - 11,500-9,000 B.C.

Pre-Archaic populations were small and their subsistence included big game hunting of now extinct mammoth and mastodon. Research indicates that the Pre-Archaic economies were based on a wide-ranging hunting and gathering strategy, dependent to a large extent on local lake-marsh or lacustrine habitats.

Early to Middle Archaic Period - 9,000-4,000 B.C.

During the Early and Middle Archaic periods, prehistoric cultures began to put less emphasis on large-game hunting. Subsistence economies probably diversified somewhat, and Archaic era people may have started using such ecological zones as the coast littoral more intensively than before. Advances in technology (milling stones) indicate that new food processing methods became important, enabling more efficient use of certain plant foods, including grains and plants with hard seeds.

Late Archaic Period - 4,000-2,000 B.C.

An important technological advance was the discovery of a tannin-removal process for the abundant and nutritious acorns. Prehistoric trade networks developed and diversified, bringing raw materials and finished goods from one region to another. Resource exploitation, as during the Early and Middle Archaic, was generally seasonal. Bands moved between established locations within a clearly defined/defended territory, scheduling resource harvests according to their availability. Clustering of food resources along the shores of large lakes or the banks of major fish-producing rivers allowed for larger seasonal population aggregates. Dispersed resources, such as large and small game, during the winter prompted small family groups to disperse across the landscape for more efficient food harvesting. The spear thrower (atlatl) may have been introduced or increased in importance, accounting for a change in projectile point styles from the Western Stemmed to the Pinto and Humboldt series. Seed grinding increased in importance.

Early and Middle Pacific Periods - 2,000 B.C.-A.D. 500

The Pacific Period is marked by the advent of acorn meal as the most important staple food. Increasing population densities made it desirable and necessary for Indian populations to produce more food from available land and to seek more dependable food supplies. The increasing use of seed grinding and acorn leaching allowed for the exploitation of more dependable food resources; increased use of previously neglected ecological zones (the middle and high Sierran elevations) may also have been part of this trend.

Late Pacific Period – A.D. 500-1400

Around A.D. 500 – 600, a cultural watershed was triggered by the introduction of the bow and arrow, which replaced the spear thrower and dart as the hunting tool/weapon of choice. The most useful time markers for this period tend to be small projectile points/arrow tips. Another trend is the marked shift from portable manos/metates to bedrock mortars/pestles (Moratto, 1984). Moratto, et al. (1978) demonstrated that this was a time of cultural stress, during which trading activity abated, warfare was common, and populations shifted away from the Sierra Nevada foothills to higher mountain elevations. They explain these changes in terms of rapid climatic fluctuations, including a drier climate and a corresponding shift of vegetation zones.

Final Pacific Period - A.D. 1400-1789

Populations became increasingly sedentary and depended more on staple foods, even as the diversity of foods exploited increased. Permanent settlements with high populations were more common. Every available ecological niche was exploited, at least on a seasonal basis. Other trends included the resurgence of long-


TABLE 8.3-2The Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984) Model of Cultural Periods in California

distance trade networks and the development of more complex social and political systems.

8.3.1.3 Ethnographic BackgroundMEC is located within the territory of the Costanoan, who lived in the area when Spanish explorers/missionaries entered (see Figure 8.3-3). The aboriginal inhabitants of the project area belonged to a group known as the "Costanoan", derived from the Spanish word Costanos ("coast people" or "coastal dwellers") who occupied the central California coast as far east as the Diablo Range (Kroeber 1925:462). The project area lies within the Tamyen (Tamien) territory of the Costanoan, close to the boundary with the Mutsun Costanoan (also known as the Ohlone; Galvan 1967/68; Margolin 1978). Based on Spanish mission records and archaeological data, researchers estimated the Tamyen to be about 1000 to 1200 individuals in 1770 (Levy 1978:485; C. King 1977:54). Within the Tamyen area, the population was further subdivided into tribelets. In 1770, these tribelets were politically autonomous groups containing some 50 to 500 individuals, with an average population of 200. Tribelet territories, defined by physiographic features, 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 (Levy 1978:485;487).Most of the project area is located in what was the territory of the San Juan Bautista tribelet, whose primary settlement was probably situated in the vicinity of the Guadalupe River with Alamitos Creek (Levy 1978:485). C. King (1977:42) assigned both the Coyote and Almaden Valleys to individuals from the rancherias of San Carlos. According to King, this tribelet's primary village, Matalan, was located near La Laguna Seca in Coyote Valley (C. King 1977:42, 1978b:469); Laguna Seca being only a few thousand feet away from MEC. Roop (1976) noted that the village of Matalanes or Masalanes was a major center of political power at the time of Spanish contact and is identified with archaeological site CA-SCl-2 (located less than a mile to the southwest of MEC). Milliken (1995:229, Map 5, 248) referred to the Matalan as a Costanoan speaking tribe who held the Santa Clara Valley corridor from the present town of Coyote to the present town of Morgan Hill.In contrast to Levy, King places the San Juan Bautista tribelet in the Hillsdale area of San Jose (C. King 1978b:438). While Kroeber identified no villages in the project area, he included the Coyote area within the territory of the northern Santa Clara Valley Costanoan (Kroeber 1925:465). Historic accounts of the distribution of Costanoan tribelets and villages in the 1770s-1790s along with the results of archaeological investigations in the area suggest that several tribelets may have temporarily camped within the project area vicinity throughout the prehistoric period and into the Hispanic Period (Kroeber 1925:465; King 1973; King and Hickman 1973)In addition, a major prehistoric and historic trail from San Pablo Bay/Lower Sacramento Valley Delta south to the Pajaro River (approximating the current corridors of State Highway 17 and Monterey Road/former State Highway 101) proceeded through the general study area (Elsasser 1986:48, Table 4, Fig. 10).


The Costanoan aboriginal lifeway apparently disappeared by 1810 due to its disruption by new diseases, a declining birth rate, and the impact of the mission system. The Costanoan were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers who lived at the missions and worked with former neighboring groups such as the Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok (Levy 1978:486). Later, because of the secularization of the Missions by Mexico in 1834, most of the aboriginal population gradually moved to ranchos to work as manual laborers (Levy 1978:486). For a comprehensive review of the Costanoan see Kroeber (1925), Levy (1978), T. King (1973), C. King (1974, 1977, 1978b), King and Hickman (1973), Elsasser (1986), Bean (1994), and Milliken (1995). For an extensive review of regional and Santa Clara Valley prehistory see C. King (1974, 1977, 1978a-b), Elsasser (1978, 1986), T. King (1973), and T. King and Hickman (1973) and Daniel, et al. (1983).

8.3.1.4 Historical BackgroundRecorded history in Santa Clara County can be divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769-1821), the Mexican Period (1821-1848), and the American Period (1848-present).8.3.1.4.1 Spanish PeriodThe period of initial historic exploration of the Santa Clara Valley lasted from 1769 to 1776. Between 1769 and 1776 a number of Spanish expeditions traversed the area including those led by Portola, Fages, Fages and Crespi, Anza, Rivera, and Moraga (Levy 1978:486). Even though the routes of the early explorers cannot be accurately determined, a number appear to have been within the project vicinity. These include the expeditions of Pedro Fages in 1770, Pedro Fages and Father Crespi in 1772, Fernando Javier y Moncada Rivera and Father Francisco Palou in 1774, Bruno de Hezeta-Palou in 1775, and Anza and Font in 1776. Still later, more Spanish expeditions passed near the approximate vicinity including those led by Alferez Gabriel Moraga in 1806, and Jose Viader accompanied by Moraga in 1810, and Jose Dolores Pico in 1815 (Beck and Haase 1974:17, 20, 21).Mission Santa Clara de Asis, the 8th of the 21 missions founded in California, was established on January 18th, 1777 (Hall 1871:48; Hart 1978:388). As one of seven missions within Costanoan territory, Mission Santa Clara would have been the mission with the greatest impact on the aboriginal population living in the vicinity (Hart 1978:96). Moreover, Mission Santa Clara provided all the religious needs of the Pueblo San Jose de Guadalupe until 1851 (Hall 1871:84). The Spanish philosophy of government was directed at the founding of presidios, missions, and secular towns with the land held by the Crown (1769-1821), while the later Mexican policy stressed individual ownership of the land (Findlay 1980:6). The study area was probably used for grazing cattle as the export of tallow and hides was a major economic pursuit of the Santa Clara Valley and California during the Spanish Period.8.3.1.4.2 Mexican PeriodDuring the Mexican Period (1821 to 1846) and into the American Period, the project area was situated at the southern end of Rancho Yerba Buena or Socayre and northern end of Rancho La Laguna Seca and included a portion of The


Alvirez Field, Lot #38 (Thompson 1857; Wallace 1858; Thompson and Herrmann 1881; Thompson and West 1876:60-61).No Spanish Period adobe dwellings or other structures have been reported in or adjacent to MEC (Hendry and Bowman 1940:940-942, 954-956). Metcalf Road terminates at Monterey Road and is the most important historic era feature in the study area. This former Spanish road, and later stage road from San Jose to Monterey corresponds to the approximate alignment of the present-day Monterey Road (State Route 82). It began in downtown San Jose, forming the boundary between Pueblo Tract No. 1 and Pueblo Lot No. 6, extended through Rancho Santa Teresa and Rancho La Laguna Seca and on to Monterey (Thompson and Herrmann 1881; Thompson and West 1876:61).The Mexican Period witnessed the secularization of the missions as the Spanish-colonial system collapsed and the lands fell out of mission control. By 1845, most of the land holdings were in the form of large ranchos. Increasingly bad relations between the United States and Mexico led to the Mexican-American War of 1847, which resulted in Mexico releasing California to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.8.3.1.4.3 American PeriodIn the mid-19th century, much of the rancho and pueblo lands and some ungranted land in was sub-divided as the result of population growth, the American takeover, and the confirmation of property titles. Growth was attributed to the Gold Rush (1848), the completion of the transcontinental railroad (1869), and construction of local railroads. Later, the development of the refrigerator railroad car (circa 1880s), which was used to transport local agricultural produce to distant markets, had a major impact on the Santa Clara Valley. During the later American Period and into the Contemporary Period (circa 1876-1940s), fruit production became a major industry (Broek 1932:76-83). Fruit production/processing held steady until after World War II. In recent decades this agrarian land-use pattern has been gradually displaced by residential housing, commercial centers, and the development of research and manufacturing facilities associated with the electronics industry leading to the designation of the general region as the "Silicon Valley."Monterey Road, part of which passes by MEC, is the most important historic era feature in the project area. Throughout the American Period, Monterey Road functioned as the main stage coach road from San Francisco to Los Angeles (Beck and Haase 1974:51-53). The section between San Jose and Gilroy/Watsonville was originally a toll road, but was declared a public highway in 1874 (Sawyer 1922:149).Railroads replaced stage travel along the corridor in the late 1860s. The Santa Clara and Pajaro Valley Railroad started service between San Jose and Gilroy in April, 1868 while the competing the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad reached Fifteen Mile House-Perry Station (about four miles south the project area) in January, 1869 and Gilroy by March, 1869. The Southern Pacific Railroad took control of the route on December 31, 1870 (Hall 1871:311; Thompson and West


1876:37, 61; James and McMurry 1933:103-104; Miller 1948:93; 99; Hoover et al. 1966:431; Beck and Haase 1974:51-53).

8.3.1.5 Resources InventoryInventory methods for the MEC project area consisted of archival research, a pedestrian survey, architectural reconnaissance, and Native American consultation.8.3.1.5.1 Archival ResearchCH2M HILL conducted a series of record searches at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park.The searches were initiated on January 26, February 18, and March 1, 1999. The searches, which included the project area of potential effect (APE) and areas within 1 mile of the APE, determined that portions of the project area APE have been surveyed previously for cultural resources.A total of 136 cultural resource studies have been conducted within the project APE and/or within a one-mile radius of the project area (proposed corridors and all other studied corridors). An important group of studies are those connected with permitting the North Coyote Valley Assessment District infrastructure improvements and studies commissioned by private Coyote Valley industrial park developers including Anastasio (1985, 1986); Anastasio and Bard (1990a, b, c); Anastasio, Bard, Dezzani, Barber, Busby, Garaventa, Guedon, Harmon, Meyer and Tannam (1986, 1987a, b, 1990); Anastasio, Bard, Garaventa and Jarvis (1990a, b); Anastasio, Bard, Garaventa, Jarvis and Corbett (1990); Anastasio, Garaventa and Gallagher (1987); Anastasio, Harmon, Guedon, Meyer, Ogrey, Schinowsky, Thomas and Corbett (1986); Anastasio, Harmon, Schinowsky and Guedon (1985); Anastasio and Thomas (1985); Bard, Garaventa, Anastasio and Harmon (1982); Bard, Kennard, Porter, Busby and Tannam (1982); Busby (1998a, b);and Garaventa, Anastasio, Harmon and McCormack (1983). Studies triggered to permit new or improved transportation infrastructure include the new U.S. 101 (see Bente 1979; Compton and Buss 1987; Daniel, Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall with Hildebrant 1983; Desgrandchamp 1978a,b; Dietz 1977; Hall, Hylkema and Leach-Palm 1988; Hastings 1975; Jackson 1973; King 1977; Melandry 1976a, b, c; and Winter 1977a) and the local Guadalupe Corridor light rail system (Bard, et al. 1984a,b, c; Bard, et al. 1986; Busby, et al. 1986; Cartier, et al. 1993a,b; Chavez 1980; Fong 1989; PBQD and KEMCO 1983a, b; and Roop 1980).Other transportation projects include Caltrain extensions (Holman 1989), Metcalf and Monterey Road improvements (Holman 1993, 1994), the Highway 85/101 interchange (Clark 1990), Capitol Expressway (Anastasio, Farnsworth, Garaventa, Guedon and Meyer 1987), Hellyer Avenue (Anastasio, Garaventa and Guedon 1988; Breschini, Edwards and Haversat 1978; and Breschini, Edwards, Haversat, Detlefs, Laffey and Fazio 1978), Route 82 (Bingham 1983), Yerba Buena Road (Busby 1981; Busby, Endzweig and Garaventa 1981; Kobori and Liversidge 1979 and Kobori and Bard 1980), Branham Lane (Flynn 1978b), Senter Road (Garaventa, Arbegast and Corbett 1982), Snell Road park and ride (Roop 1979a,b), and Route 85/87 (Weigel 1984).


Important studies also include investigations for the Edenvale Redevelopment Projects (see Dietz 1976, Theodoratus, et al 1979, Garaventa, Harmon and McCormack. 1983, Garaventa, Bard and Anastasio 1984, and Garaventa, Anastasio, Bard, Harmon and McCormack 1983), the Santa Teresa Park Master Plan (ARM 1991) and other parks (Chavez 1976, Roop 1977a, 1991), expansion of PG&E’s Metcalf Substation (Anastasio, Bard, Harmon, Fong and Guedon 1988), the Alamitos, Evergreen and Coyote Canal projects (Cartier 1987, 1989a), various pipeline and water recycling projects (Busby, Garaventa, Tannam and Guedon 1996a,b; Cartier 1984a, Clark 1995, Marshall and Clark 1995, and ,Oetting 1981), dams (Cartier, Reese and Wizorek 1994), flood control (Flynn 1978a), and water distribution (C. King 1974; T. King 1973; and King and Hickman 1973).Other investigations include a fiber optic cable (BioSystems 1989); the Tulare Hills development (Holman 1974); development of the IBM site (Jackson 1975, Wilson 1975); Kaufman and Broad General Plan Amendment EIR (Anastasio 1987) and several studies to permit private developments (see Anastasio, Garaventa, Fong and Guedon 1988; ARM 1989, 1994, 1996; ACRS 1975a,b, 1976, 1977; Breschini 1976; Busby 1988; Cartier 1980, 1984a,b; Chavez 1975a,b, 1977a,b; Dietz 1977b; Flynn 1975, 1978c, 1989; Garaventa 1988; Garaventa and Busby 1982; Harmon, Garaventa, Fong, Banet and Guedon 1989; Holman 1979, 1987, 1988, 1993; C. King 1976; Laffey 1991, 1992, 1996a,b; Roop 1976a,b, 1977b,c, 1978, 1979b, 1983; Ruby 1997; Wiberg 1990; and Winter 1977b.Forty-four (44) prehistoric and historic sites have been formally or informally recorded within a one-mile radius of the proposed Metcalf plant site and Metcalf project linear corridors (Figure 8.3-4a, b). Three sites, CA-SCl-178, CA-SCL-237, and CA-SCL-410H have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and by extension also for the California Register of Historical Resources. None of the other sites have been evaluated. Descriptions of these sites are included in the confidential filing.Potential Locations of Historic SitesThere appears to be minimal potential for significant potential historic era sites within the MEC project area. No structures or farmsteads were situated within or adjacent to the project area on a historic map dating to 1876. At that time, the area was situated in parcels owned by J.P. Piercy (4047 acres), Dan Rola (1865 acres), D. Murphy (79 acres on the west side of Monterey Road) and John Heinlen (1048 acres on the west side of Monterey Road) (Thompson and West 1876:61).A review of the USGS topographic map series indicates that Metcalf Road was present by 1917 along with a short north/south road bisecting Metcalf Road in the area between Coyote Creek and the foothills. In 1917, two structures appear to have been present south of Metcalf Road. By 1943, they are no longer extant though two structures were present at the base of the foothills adjacent to an orchard. At that time, a Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 110 kV line was the only other built feature in the project area. By 1980, the north/south road bisecting Metcalf Road and the structures on the south side of Metcalf Road had been removed and replaced by a pond on the north side of Metcalf Road and extensive development (including the PG&E Metcalf Road Substation) on south side of Metcalf Road (USGS 1917, 1919, 1980a-b; U.S. War Dept 1943a-b).


Other Cultural ResourcesSeveral properties in the general vicinity were identified as having historic importance (Anastasio, et al. 1986). Located in the hamlet of Coyote, on the west side of Monterey Road but east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks are three structures (water tower, depot and feed and grain warehouse) that might be eligible for listing in the NRHP as a Historic District. The Grange, also located in the hamlet of Coyote on the east side of Monterey Road, is not NRHP eligible because it has been moved from its original location, but, it still represents a significant part of local history and is of architectural interest. The Ramelli Ranch, located on the north side of the proposed Sobrato Internal Road, just east of Monterey Road, appears to be NRHP eligible as a complex. Individual buildings at the ranch, such as the former Encinal School, may be individually NRHP eligible. The Lester Farm complex, located just west of Monterey Road may be NRHP eligible. The Union Pacific Railroad Bridge, which crosses over Fisher Creek, is over 50 years old and meets the age criterion for a historic bridge. However, this bridge appears to have no significance from either an architectural or historical standpoint. None of these structures or properties would be affected by the proposed project.The Keesling black walnut trees located in the median of Monterey Road between Edenvale Avenue and Ford Road were originally planted by Horace G. Keesling and were designated in the mid 1980s by the State of California as a Point of Historical Interest. In the general vicinity of the proposed plant site, Keesling black walnuts line the west side of Monterey Highway. None of these trees would be affected by the proposed project.No other city, county, state and/or federal historically or architecturally significant structures, landmarks or points of interest are located in or adjacent to the project.8.3.1.5.2 Field SurveyPedestrian field surveys of selected MEC project elements were conducted on March 8 and 9, 1999 by Dr. James C. Bard and Mr. Robin McClintock using 10-meter intervals between survey transects. Dr. Bard has a doctoral degree in archaeology and over 20 years of experience in conducting and managing archaeological projects. Mr. McClintock holds a B.Sc. degree in anthropology and has over 18 years of experience in cultural resource management and archaeological research. A 150-foot-wide survey corridor (75 feet each side of the centerline) was employed, where feasible and appropriate. Elements subject to intensive field survey included the proposed plant site location and a strip of land immediately adjacent to the south, the proposed and alternative access roads, the domestic water line, recycled water supply line segments L, M, N, and O, the proposed transmission line and transmission line Alternative 1, and Gas Line segments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.The proposed and alternative recycled water line segments were subject to windshield survey since little to no open ground was present due to developed (residential, commercial, light industrial) land use conditions. Water Line segment I follows the Union Pacific railroad lines for virtually its entire length. A uniform layer of track ballast rock and gravel obscures the track corridor. Water Line segment E and J lie within Caltrans right-of-way (U.S. 101) where access was not sought or permitted.


With the exception of water line corridor segment C, which could be inspected because it consists of substantially undeveloped land with ample ground exposures, none of the water line corridor segments provided any meaningful opportunities to examine native soils or open, undeveloped ground.Metcalf Energy Center and Construction Laydown AreaThe location of MEC and the laydown area is described elsewhere in this application (see Sections 1 and 2). MEC was surveyed in parallel transects at 10-meter intervals. Ground visibility at the proposed plant site was generally fair to poor. Small sheds and chicken coops, mobile homes and trailers, corrals and other animal-husbandry-related structures and refuse debris piles covered substantial portions of the plant site. Other areas show clear evidence of being filled. At the time of the survey, trucks were observed entering the property to dispose of rubbish and debris. Where not otherwise obscured, open grassy areas were carefully inspected – although visibility was poor, rodent burrows provided some opportunities to examine near surface sediments.Proposed Access Road The alignment of the proposed access road lies between the plant site and Blanchard Road, just north of Coyote; on the west side of the railroad track right-of-way adjacent to flat farm land. Surface visibility was excellent since the ground has been recently disked and treated with herbicide. No evidence of archaeological materials was observed in this area. Proposed Gas LineThe alignment of the proposed gas line (segments 1, 3, and 4) was surveyed in using parallel transects. Visibility varied greatly along the alignment. In Segment 1 at the eastern end of the alignment, visibility was fair due to the disturbance of vegetation resulting from off-road vehicle activities. The presence of historic debris mixed into an unnaturally lumpy ground surface suggests that there is fill east of U.S. 101 for about the first 200 feet. West of U.S. 101, the alignment crosses a small hill that provided fair visibility due to extensive rodent and animal disturbances. Significant amounts of surface and subsurface sediments were visible. Segment 3 was heavily vegetated and except for intermittent rodent disturbances the surface visibility was poor. Segment 4 paralleled the railroad tracks and is in the area covered with fill from the grade and ballast from the tracks. Although surface visibility was excellent, the native soil surface was probably entirely obscured beneath the railway fill. No cultural materials were observed in any of these segments. Proposed Electric Transmission Line The conditions and findings at the plant site are discussed above. The area just north of the plant site was in agricultural production at the time of the survey and had been recently tilled, providing excellent visibility of surface sediments. No evidence of archaeological cultural materials was observed in this area. Proposed Recycled Water LineThis alignment includes Segments A, H, and I, which were windshield surveyed to check for the presence of open ground suitable for standard archaeological survey. Segment A was found to lie within an urbanized expressway corridor while segments H and I lie entirely within the railroad right-of-way. As noted


above, these areas have been subject to extensive fill activities and the lack of any significant native soil exposures was not unanticipated. Domestic Water LineThis alignment parallels the railroad tracks from Well #23 to the plant site. As explained above, although surface visibility is excellent in the railway right-of-way, extensive fill activities associated with construction of the railroad grade may be obscuring most of the native ground surface. No evidence of cultural materials likely to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places was observed.8.3.1.5.3 Architectural ReconnaissanceHomes, farmsteads, and commercial/industrial facilities older than 45 years are potentially significant historic resources in the project area. The project team did not observe any potentially significant historic buildings or structures within the proposed MEC plant site, access road, domestic water line, recycled water line, electrical transmission, or gas line.8.3.1.5.4 Native American ConsultationCH2M HILL contacted the NAHC by letter on January 26, February 18, and March 1999 requesting information about traditional cultural properties such as cemeteries and sacred places in the project area (see Confidential Appendix 8.3A). The NAHC responded on February 24 and March 19 with lists of Native American contacts for the general project area; seven persons or organizations of Ohlone/Costanoan heritage were listed. Each of these individuals/groups was contacted by letter on March 22, 1999. A summary of the results of consultations with the individual Native American organizations on the NAHC contact list will be included in a future filing. The NAHC record search of the Sacred Lands file failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The record search conducted at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System also failed to indicate the presence of Native American traditional cultural properties.

8.3.2 Environmental ConsequencesThis section describes the environmental consequences of construction of the proposed plant site and proposed project elements only. Environmental consequences of project alternatives are described in another section of this report (see Section 9).

8.3.2.1 Metcalf Energy Center and Construction Laydown AreaThe field survey of the proposed plant site and laydown area resulted in negative findings. No prehistoric or historic archaeological remains were detected from surface examination of exposed soils. No historically or architecturally significant buildings or structures are present. Although no surface evidence for prehistoric archaeological sites could be detected, the proposed plant site is located in an archaeologically sensitive area and its geomorphologic setting is conducive for burying archaeological sites beneath both colluvially derived overburden (downslope erosion from Tulare Hill) and alluvially deposited overburden (silts


and other sediments left from episodic flooding of either Coyote or Fisher Creeks). The possibility that buried archaeological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by construction cannot be ruled out unless the proposed plant site is subject to subsurface exploratory testing to check for the presence/absence of prehistoric archaeological remains.

8.3.2.2 Access RoadThe field survey of the proposed access road resulted in negative findings. No prehistoric or historic archaeological remains were detected from surface examination of exposed soils. No historically or architecturally significant buildings or structures are present. Although no surface evidence for prehistoric archaeological sites could be detected, the proposed access road is located in an archaeologically sensitive area and its geomorphologic setting is conducive for burying archaeological sites beneath alluvially deposited overburden (silts and other sediments left from episodic flooding of either Coyote or Fisher Creeks). The possibility that buried archaeological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by construction cannot be ruled out unless the proposed access road is subject to subsurface exploratory testing to check for the presence/absence of prehistoric archaeological remains.

8.3.2.3 Gas LineThe field survey of the proposed natural gas supply line (Gas Line segments 1, 3, and 4) resulted in negative findings. No prehistoric or historic archaeological remains were detected from surface examination of exposed soils. No historically or architecturally significant buildings or structures are present. Although no surface evidence for prehistoric archaeological sites could be detected, the proposed natural gas supply line is located in an area of known archaeological and/or historical sensitivity. The gas line passes just west of CA-SCL-576 and south of CA-SCL-237 and historic site CA-SCL-338H. The area and its geomorphologic setting is conducive for burying archaeological sites beneath alluvially deposited overburden (silts and other sediments left from episodic flooding of Coyote Creek). The possibility that buried archaeological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by construction cannot be ruled out unless the proposed gas line is subject to subsurface exploratory testing to check for the presence/absence of prehistoric archaeological remains.

8.3.2.4 Proposed Electric Transmission LineThe field survey of the proposed electrical transmission line resulted in negative findings. No prehistoric or historic archaeological remains were detected from surface examination of exposed soils. No historically or architecturally significant buildings or structures are present. Although no surface evidence for prehistoric archaeological sites could be detected, the proposed natural gas supply line is located in an area of known archaeological sensitivity. The transmission line’s geomorphologic setting is conducive for burying archaeological sites beneath alluvially deposited overburden (silts and other sediments left from episodic flooding of Fisher and/or Coyote Creek) and


colluvially derived overburden (downslope erosion from Tulare Hill). However, since no construction is planned, additional testing would not be required.

8.3.2.5 Domestic and Proposed Recycled Water LinesThe field survey of the domestic water supply line from Well #23 resulted in negative findings. No prehistoric or historic archaeological remains were detected from surface examination of exposed soils. No historically or architecturally significant buildings or structures are present. Although no surface evidence for prehistoric archaeological sites could be detected, the domestic water supply line is located in an area of known archaeological sensitivity. Its geomorphologic setting is conducive for burying archaeological sites beneath alluvially deposited overburden (silts and other sediments left from episodic flooding of Coyote Creek). The possibility that buried archaeological sites would be disturbed or destroyed by construction cannot be ruled out unless the domestic water supply line is subject to subsurface exploratory testing to check for the presence or absence of prehistoric archaeological remains.Only a windshield survey of the proposed recycled water supply lines (Water Line segments A, H, and I or A-1, D-1, G, and I) was attempted due to poor to negligible surface visibility beneath city streets and graveled railroad track right-of-way. Only one known prehistoric archaeological site is present in any of the above segments – CA-SCL-448. Its status is unknown, but is thought to be destroyed and not otherwise significant enough to warrant further consideration (see site description above). Archaeological site CA-SCL-191 lies to the east of the Water Line segment I and would be unaffected by construction of this segment. Similarly, historic site CA-SCL-334H lies to the east of this segment and it too would be unaffected if this segment is built.

8.3.3 Cumulative EffectsSince the project would not affect known significant cultural resources, it would not likely cause significant cumulative impacts. If construction of MEC and/or any of its associated linear features (e.g., the natural gas supply line, the electrical transmission line or water supply or discharge lines) were to encounter a large, stratified, buried prehistoric archaeological site, the possibility of cumulative impacts would arise because such sites are highly significant, and many have been destroyed or damaged by agricultural activity and/or commercial/industrial/residential development in the project area. Given the relative low level of impact to such a site that these linear features would cause, it is also possible that proposed activities would not lead to significant cumulative impacts, depending on the extent of project impact to any such discovered archaeological deposits. Any potential impact to an unknown site would be minimized by monitoring during construction (Section 8.3.4) and by stop-work procedures if a site were uncovered.

8.3.4 Mitigation MeasuresMitigation measures are described only for the proposed project elements. Mitigation measures for project alternatives are not presented in this report.


The best mitigation measure is to avoid impact to cultural resources that may be located in the project area. Avoidance can be accomplished by having the archaeologist and project engineer demarcate cultural resource site boundaries on the ground to ensure that proposed project improvements do not impinge on the resource(s). Where a tower, road, or pipeline must be placed within 100 feet of a known archaeological site, the site can be temporarily fenced or otherwise marked on the ground as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). Construction equipment can then be directed away from the ESA, and construction personnel directed to avoid entering the ESA. In some cases, additional archaeological work will be needed to better delineate ESA boundaries.Prior to starting construction near a designated ESA, the construction crew should be informed of the resource values involved and of the regulatory protections afforded to the resources. The crew can also be informed of procedures relating to designated ESAs and cautioned not to drive into these areas to park or operate construction equipment on them. The crew can be cautioned not to collect artifacts and asked to inform their supervisor, should cultural remains be uncovered.Though archaeological and historical sites were not found during project field surveys of the proposed project elements, it is possible that subsurface construction could encounter buried archaeological remains. Since several prehistoric archaeological sites and isolated artifacts have been found in this archaeologically sensitive portion of North Coyote Valley (see above site descriptions) pre-construction subsurface testing is recommended in several areas (see below).

8.3.4.1 Pre-construction Subsurface TestingArchaeological sites in the project area are found either on the surface or beneath the surface (e.g., they are inadvertently discovered during construction or discovered as a result of deliberate exploratory trenching by archaeologists). Because Coyote Creek has periodically flooded the valley floor and because the valley itself accumulates sediments eroding down from the hills that flank it on both sides, archaeological sites on the valley floor or at the base of alluvial/colluvial fans have become buried beneath overburden sediments. To ensure that project construction does not result in the inadvertent discovery of buried archaeological sites, pre-construction archaeological testing should be conducted in the following areas: MEC plant site and laydown area Proposed Access Road Proposed Electrical Transmission Line Proposed Gas Line Domestic Water LinePre-construction testing is a form of enhanced survey in that surface survey cannot, in normal circumstances, result in reliable detection of buried archaeological sites. Subsurface testing, therefore, completes the survey by compensating for the presence of site-obscuring overburden. Previous researchers have successfully employed backhoe trenching to detect buried archaeological sites in the immediate project vicinity (cf. Anastasio, et al. 1986,


1987a, 1987b, and 1990; Bard, et al. 1982; Daniel, et al. 1983; Dietz 1977; and Hall, et al. 1988).

8.3.4.2 Monitoring During ConstructionConstruction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist is recommended for the proposed recycled water line (segments A, H, and I) due to the overall archaeological and historical sensitivity of the Coyote Creek area between North Coyote Valley on the south and the Edenvale, Hellyer and Silver Creek areas to the north. Depending on the outcome of the pre-construction subsurface testing, construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist may also be recommended for some elements.Qualified personnel consisting of a Project Archaeologist (PA) and an Archaeological Monitor (AM), should conduct the recommended construction monitoring. A PA and AM can be a single person, if properly qualified. Proper qualifications for a PA are the minimum qualifications for Principal Investigator on federal projects under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The AM should have 5 years of experience in conducting archaeological field projects or hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in anthropology, with an emphasis in archaeology, and have at least 1 year of experience in conducting archaeological field projects. The AM should be qualified to detect archaeological deposits in the field. In addition to site detection, the PA should be qualified to evaluate the significance of the deposits, consult with regulatory agencies, and plan site evaluation and mitigation activities.To ensure participation by interested members of the Native American (Ohlone Indian) community, it is recommended that a Native American monitor be present during any needed archaeological site testing and/or data recovery operations triggered as a consequence of archaeological remains being discovered during construction. Selection of the monitor should be made through the NAHC, and the Native American monitor could be retained either directly by the project applicant or through the subconsultant conducting the actual archaeological fieldwork.A six-point archaeological monitoring program should be implemented as follows:1. Preconstruction Assessment and Construction Training—The PA and AM will

visit the project area before construction begins to become familiar with site conditions. As construction begins, the PA will conduct a worker education session for construction supervisory personnel to explain the importance of, and legal basis for, the protection of significant archaeological resources. This worker education session can take place at the same time as the paleontological training session (see Section 8.16.4), because both disciplines will involve the monitoring of excavation activities (although in different areas). Information about archaeological resources may be combined with information about cultural resources in the training brochure that will be distributed to construction supervisory personnel.

2. Construction Monitoring—The AM should be present at the construction site at all times when excavation is taking place within the zone of archaeological


sensitivity. The AM’s role will be to watch for buried archaeological deposits during excavation for roads, natural gas and water pipelines and during the placement of underground electrical transmission cable or at-grade construction of electrical transmission poles. If the AM identifies archaeological remains during construction, the AM should immediately notify the PA and Site Superintendent, who should halt construction in the immediate vicinity of the find, as necessary. The Superintendent and AM will use flagging tape, rope, or other means to delineate the area of the find within which construction will halt. This area should include the excavation trench from which the archaeological finds came and any piles of dirt or rock spoil from that area. Construction should not take place within the delineated find area until the PA, in consultation with CEC staff, can inspect and evaluate the find. Figure 8.3-5 provides a prototype plan to deal with unexpected discoveries during construction.

3. Site Recording and Evaluation—The PA and/or AM should follow accepted professional standards in recording any find and should submit the standard Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Primary Record forms (Form DPR 523) and locational information to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (Sonoma State University). If the PA determines that the find is insignificant, construction will proceed (see Figure 8.3-5). If the PA determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, the CEC and SHPO will be notified, and the consultant will prepare a plan and a timetable for evaluating the find, in consultation with the CEC and SHPO.Under CEQA, a find would be considered significant (would be classified as an “important archaeological resource”) if it: Is associated with an event or person of:

Recognized significance in California or American history, or Recognized scientific importance in prehistory, or

Can provide information that is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions; or

Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; or

Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or

Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.

Under the NHPA, a find is significant if it meets the NRHP listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,

engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures,


and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and: that are associated with events that have made a significant

contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method

of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or

that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

If human remains are found during construction, project officials are required by the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) to contact the County Coroner (Figure 8.3-6 provides a prototype plan to handle inadvertent discoveries of burials). A sample burial plan is attached as Appendix 8.3A. If the Coroner determines that the find is Native American, he/she must contact the NAHC. The NAHC, as required by the Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98) determines and notifies the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), and requests the MLD to inspect the burial and make recommendations for treatment or disposal.If human remains are encountered on federally owned/administered land (e.g., U.S. 101), the applicable federal agency (Federal Highway Administration) would be required to negotiate under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act the repatriation of the remains to a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated organization.

4. Mitigation Planning—If the PA and the consulting parties (the CEC, SHPO, and, depending on the location, possibly the Federal Highway Administration, determine that the find is significant, they should prepare and carry out a mitigation plan in accordance with state and federal guidelines. This plan should emphasize the avoidance, if possible, of significant archaeological resources. If avoidance is not possible, the recovery of a sample of the deposit from which the archaeologist can define scientific data to address archaeological research questions should be considered an effective mitigation measure for damage to or destruction of the deposit.The mitigation program, if necessary, should be carried out as soon as possible to avoid construction delays. Construction should resume at the site as soon as the field data collection phase of any data recovery effort is completed. The PA will verify the completion of field data collection by letter to Calpine/Bechtel and the CEC so that Calpine/Bechtel can resume construction.

5. Curation—The PA will arrange for the curation of archaeological materials collected during the monitoring and mitigation program at a qualified curation facility. A qualified curation facility is a recognized, non-profit, archaeological repository with a permanent Curator. The PA shall submit field notes, stratigraphic drawings, and other materials developed as part of the


archaeological excavation program to the curation facility along with the collection.

6. Report of Findings—If buried archaeological deposits are found during construction, the PA will prepare a report summarizing the monitoring and archaeological investigation program implemented to evaluate the find or to recover data from an archaeological site as a mitigation measure. This report should describe the site soils and stratigraphy, describe and analyze artifacts and other materials recovered, and explain the site’s significance. This report should be submitted to the curation facility with the collection.Following these mitigation measures would lower any potential project effects on archaeological resources below the threshold of significance. Though it is possible that the project would encounter significant archaeological deposits, the monitor would be present to detect, evaluate, and recover them. The monitoring and mitigation program would, therefore, be effective.Emergency maintenance and repair could cause impacts to cultural resources. In developing specific mitigative measures to address impacts for any site that cannot be avoided during construction. The potential for ongoing impacts to any resource that cannot be avoided through project redesign must be considered. Any mitigative data recovery should be properly scoped, in conjunction with the appropriate agencies, to address potential long-term ongoing impacts.

8.3.5 Applicable Cultural Resource LORS8.3.5.1 Historical Resources - CEQACEQA applies to discretionary projects and equates a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource with a significant effect on the environment (Section 21084.1) and defines substantial adverse change as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration that would impair historical significance (Section 5020.1). Section 21084.1 stipulates that any resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Resources listed in a local historic register or deemed significant in a historical resource survey (as provided under Section 5024.1g) are presumed historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates they are not. A resource that is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR, not included in a local register or historic resources, or not deemed significant in a historical resource survey may nonetheless be historically significant (Section 21084.1). Public Resources Code Section 21098.1 stipulates:

“A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subsection (k) of Section 5020.1 [see below], are presumed to be historically or culturally significant


for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register or historical resources, or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 [see below] shall not preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be an historical resource for purposes of this section.”

Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1 and 5024.1 provide the following definitions: Historic district means a definable unified geographic entity that possesses a

significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.

Historical landmark means any historical resource that is registered as a state historical landmark pursuant to Section 5021.

Historical resource includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.

Local register of historic resources means a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.

Substantial adverse change means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired.

A resource identified as significant in a historical resource survey may be listed in the CRHR is the survey meets all of the following criteria: The survey has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources

Inventory The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with

Office of Historic Preservation procedures and requirements The resource is evaluated and determined by the Office of Historic

Preservation to have a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523.

If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the CRHR, the survey is updated to identify historical resources that have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those that have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource.

8.3.5.2 Archaeological Resources - CEQA


CEQA applies to discretionary projects and requires the Lead Agency to identify and examine the significant adverse environmental effects that may result from such projects. New guidelines became effective January 1, 1999 (see below). Where a project may adversely affect a unique archaeological resource, Section 21083.2 requires the Lead Agency to treat that effect as a significant environmental effect and prepare an EIR. When an archaeological resource is listed in or eligible to be listed in the CRHR, Section 21084.1 requires that any substantial adverse effect to that resource be considered a significant environmental effect. Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 operate independently to ensure that potential effects on archaeological resources are considered as part of a project’s environmental analysis. Either of these benchmarks may indicate that a proposal may have a potential adverse effect on archaeological resources.Public Resources Code 21083.2 (g) defines unique archaeological resource to be:

An archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: (1) contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information, (2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, or (3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines (which was dropped from the new guidelines that took effect on January 1, 1999) took a broader approach, using the term “important” in place of “unique.” Appendix K went beyond Section 21083.2 suggesting additional criteria to guide the Lead Agency in making a determination of uniqueness (the resource must be at least 100 years old and possess “substantial stratigraphic integrity” and the resource involves “important” research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods).Section 21084.1 requires treatment of any substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource listed in or eligible to be listed in the CRHR as a significant effect on the environment. The definition of “historical resource” includes archaeological resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the CRHR and by reference, the NRHP, California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, and local registers (see Section 5020.1 and 5024.1 definitions above).As noted above, Appendix K guided evaluation of impacts to prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Effective October 26, 1998, Appendix K was deleted but its still-relevant guidance was moved into the body of CEQA in new sections 15064.5 and 15126.4. To resolve conflicts between the narrow and limiting statutory provision for mitigation of archaeological resources and the broadly protective statutory provision for determining the significance of historical resources, section 15064.5(c) provides that to the extent an archaeological resource is also an historical resource, the provisions regarding historical resources apply.


These new provisions endorse the first set of standardized mitigation measures for historic resources by providing that projects following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties shall be considered as mitigated to a less-than-significant level.Other provisions put lead agencies on notice that, in many circumstances, the very popular method of mitigating impacts on historical resources by way of documentation (e.g., narrative, photographs, architectural drawings) will not mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. In Section 15331, a new categorical exemption is added for projects limited to restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Gorsen 1999).CEQA Appendix G lists, among its significant effects, when a project will “disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group… except as part of a scientific study.”

8.3.5.3 Native American Burials – Other California Laws and RegulationsOther state-level requirements for cultural resources management are written into the California Public Resources Code Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5 (Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites), and Chapter 1.75, beginning at Section 5097.9 (Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites) for lands owned by the state or a state agency.The disposition of Native American burials is governed by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code and fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). If human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to Section 5097.98 will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal. Table 8.3-3 summarizes LORS applicable to cultural resources.If a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit for filling wetlands and/or crossing either Coyote or Fisher Creeks, the NHPA of 1966 (as amended) and its implementing regulations (16 USC 470 et seq., 36 CFR 800, 36 CFR 60, and 36 CFR 63) also apply. The NHPA establishes the federal government’s policy on historic preservation and the programs, including the NRHP, through which that policy is implemented. Under the NHPA, historic properties include “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places” (16 United States Code [USC] 470w (5)). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as lead federal agency for issuing the CWA Section 404 permit, would be the lead agency for NHPA Section 106 compliance.


TABLE 8.3-3Applicable Cultural Resources Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards

Law, Ordinance, Regulation, or Standard Applicability

Project Conformity

?AFC

Reference

CEQA Guidelines Project construction may encounter archaeological resources

Yes Section 8.3.4

Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5

Construction may encounter Native American graves, Coroner calls NAHC

Yes Section 8.3.4

Public Resources CodeSection 5097.98

Construction may encounter Native American graves, NAHC assigns Most Likely Descendant

Yes Section 8.3.4

Public Resources CodeSection 5097.5/5097.9

Would apply only if some project land were acquired by the state (currently no state land)

Yes Section 8.3.4

National Historic Preservation Act

Issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is a federal undertaking

Yes Section 8.3.4

Archaeological Resources Protection Act

Protects archaeological resources from vandalism and unauthorized collecting on federal land

Yes Section 8.3.5

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Assigns ownership of Native American graves on federal land to Native American descendants or culturally affiliated organizations

Yes Section 8.3.5

San Jose 2020 General Plan Sets goal to preserve historically and archaeologically significant structures, sites, districts and artifacts

Yes Section 8.3.5.4

Section 106 (16 USC 470f) of the NHPA requires federal agencies, prior to implementing an “undertaking” (e.g., issuing a federal permit), to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the SHPO a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing on the NRHP. The NRHP inclusion criteria are listed above in Section 8.3.4.1.On federal land, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) would apply. ARPA assigns penalties for vandalism and the unauthorized collection of archaeological resources on federal land and provides for federal agencies to issue permits for scientific excavation by qualified archaeologists. NAGPRA assigns ownership of Native American graves found on federal land to their direct descendants or to a culturally affiliated tribe or organization.

8.3.5.4 Local Laws and Regulations8.3.5.4.1 Santa Clara CountyThe Santa Clara County General Plan (1995-2010) defines heritage resources as those particular types of resources, both natural and man-made, which due to their vulnerability or irreplaceable nature deserve special protection if they are


to be preserved for current and future generations (Santa Clara County 1995). Heritage resources include: historical sites, structures, and areas; archaeological and paleontological sites and artifacts; and historical and specimen trees. Cultural heritage resource protection in the General Plan consists of three basic strategies: inventory and evaluate heritage resources; prevent or minimize adverse impacts on heritage resources; and restore, enhance and commemorate resources.8.3.5.4.2 City of San JoseThe City of San Jose’s 2020 General Plan includes a historic, archaeological and cultural resources goal to preserve historically and archaeologically significant structures, sites, districts and artifacts in order to promote a greater sense of historic awareness and community identity and to enhance the quality of urban living (San Jose 1994). San Jose’s historic, archaeological and cultural resource policies urge: Preservation of historically or archaeologically significant sites during

development review Use of the Area of Historic Sensitivity overlay and the landmark designation

process of the Historical Preservation Ordinance to promote preservation of historically or architecturally significant sites and structures

Maintenance of an inventory of historically and/or architecturally significant structures

Creation of Historic Preservation Districts for areas with a concentration of historically and/or architecturally significant sites or structures

Compatible design (and design review) of new development located in proximity to designated historic landmark structures and sites

Rehabilitation of individual buildings and districts of historic significance using measures and incentives (tax relief, grants, loans, etc.)

Relocation of structures of historic, cultural or architectural merit which are proposed for demolition because of public improvement projects

City to require investigation during the planning process to determine if valuable archaeological remains may be affected by the project and should require appropriate mitigation measures to be incorporated into project design

City should impose a requirement on all development permits and tentative subdivision maps that upon discovery of Native American burials during construction, development activity will cease until professional archaeological examination and reburial in an appropriate manner is accomplished

Maintenance and protection of heritage trees and periodic updating of the heritage tree list

City should continue and expand participation in Federal and State programs that provide tax and other incentives to rehabilitate historically or architecturally significant structures


8.3.6 Involved Agencies and Agency ContactsTable 8.3-4 lists the state agencies involved in cultural resources management for the project and a contact person at each agency. These agencies include the California NAHC and, for federal lands, the California Office of Historic Preservation.

TABLE 8.3-4Agency Contacts

Issue Contact Title Telephone

Native American traditional cultural properties

Ms. Gail McNultyNAHC

Associate Government Program Analyst

(916) 653-4040

Federal agency NHPA Section 106 compliance

Mr. Daniel AbeytaCalifornia Office of Historic Preservation

(Acting) SHPO (916) 653-6624

8.3.7 Permits Required and ScheduleIn addition to the CEC site certification, the Metcalf project may require federal, state or local permits that include provisions protecting cultural resources. If a previously undiscovered archaeological site is found during construction on state land the newly discovered site would require NRHP eligibility evaluation. The PA would secure a permit to conduct scientific archaeological excavations from Caltrans. If a CWA Section 404 permit is required for construction (wetland fills or crossings) in Coyote or Fisher Creeks, consultation with the SHPO and ACHP (under Section 106 of the NHPA) would be required (even though no federal land is involved in the project because federal permitting or licensing requires the USACE to consider whether the project would affect historic properties listed on or meeting the criteria for listing in the NRHP). Similarly, use of state or public lands or acquisition of discretionary development permits are subject to CEQA. Consultation with the SHPO and/or the state or local lead agency(s) is required if the project would affect historic properties listed on or meeting the criteria for listing in the CRHR.If the project becomes subject to federal involvement, some or all of the following Section 106 compliance procedures would be followed as appropriate:1. If the federal agency finds no historic properties that the undertaking might

affect, the agency informs the SHPO, documents the finding, and proceeds with the undertaking.

2. If the agency finds historic properties and determines that the project would not affect them, then the agency informs the SHPO and documents the finding. The SHPO has 15 days in which to object to the finding, after which the agency may proceed with the undertaking.

3. If the agency finds historic properties that the project would affect, the agency and SHPO consult to determine whether the effect would be adverse. If the agency and SHPO find that the effect would not be adverse, the agency informs the ACHP, documents the finding, and the ACHP has 30 days in which


to object to the finding. If there is no objection, the agency proceeds with the undertaking.

4. If the agency finds historic properties and determines that the project effects would be adverse, the agency and SHPO consult to determine how to mitigate these effects. This consultation culminates in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the agency, SHPO, and ACHP. The ACHP and SHPO are allotted 30 days in which to review and comment on a draft MOA. If the parties agree, the agency proceeds with the undertaking after signing and executing the MOA. If the agency does not agree to prepare an MOA, the ACHP must provide its comments on the undertaking within 60 days.

The Section 106 regulatory compliance process thus takes a minimum of 15 days if historic properties are found. This process can take from 60 to 90 days or more, depending on the complexity of the issues involved, the necessity of preparing a MOA, and other factors.If Native American burials were discovered on federally owned land, the NAGPRA would require that the federal land management agency halt construction in the immediate vicinity of the find and contact a lineal descendant of the buried person or culturally affiliated organization. The regulations implementing NAGPRA (43 CFR 10) require that the federal agency notify the appropriate Native American persons or organizations within 3 days of the find. These regulations also require that construction activity in the immediate vicinity of the find stop for 30 days or until a written agreement is executed to adopt a recovery plan for the treatment or removal of the human remains.Since neither the FHWA, Caltrans, or the USACE are direct construction participants, it would be incumbent upon Calpine/Bechtel and its contractors to notify immediately these federal agencies if Native American burials and/or other archaeological remains are discovered on federal land.


8.3.8 ReferencesAnastasio, R.L. 1985. Administrative Draft - Cultural Resources Survey of North Coyote Valley Assessment District Infrastructure Improvements, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report on file, Nolte and Associates, San Jose and Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.----------. 1986. DRAFT Cultural Resources Survey of North Coyote Valley Assessment District Infrastructure Project Areas, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-11912 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1987. Kaufman and Broad General Plan Amendment EIR. Report S-9187 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., A.M. Banet and M.V. Farnsworth. 1988. Historic Property Survey of the Proposed Capitol Expressway Commuter Lane Project, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-10156 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L. and J.C. Bard. 1990a. Cultural Resources Survey of the North Coyote Valley Improvement District, San Jose, Santa Clara, California. Report S-17769 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1990b. Cultural Resources Survey North Coyote Valley Improvement District Proposed Freeway Interchanges/Approaches Project Areas, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-14880 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1990c. Cultural Resources Survey North Coyote Valley Improvement District Proposed Roadway, Freeway Interchange and Water Supply Facilities San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-14881 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., J.C. Bard, R.J. Dezzani, A.E. Barber, C.I. Busby, D.M. Garaventa, S.A. Guedon, R.M. Harmon, M.D. Meyer, and M.E. Tannam. 1986. Presence/Absence Testing at CA-SCL-574, Koll Road II – Between Bailey Avenue and Koll Road I, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-11913 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1987a. Presence/Absence Testing at CA-SCL-2, Bailey Avenue Near Santa Teresa Boulevard, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-11915 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1987b. Presence/Absence Testing at CA-SCL-573 within Proposed Highway 101/Bailey Avenue Interchange, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County,


California. Report S-11916 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1990. Presence/Absence Testing at CA-SCL-573 within Proposed Highway 101/Bailey Avenue Interchange, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-14879 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., J.C. Bard, D.M. Garaventa and S.A. Jarvis. 1990a. Cultural Resources Survey, North Coyote Valley Assessment District, Proposed Freeway Interchanges/Approaches Project Areas, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-14880 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1990b. Cultural Resources Survey, North Coyote Valley Improvement District, Proposed Roadway, Freeway Interchange and Water Supply Facilities, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-14881 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., J.C. Bard, D.M. Garaventa, S.A. Jarvis and M.R. Corbett. 1990. Cultural Resources Survey of the North Coyote Valley Improvement District, San Jose, Santa Clara Valley, California. Report S-17769 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., J.C. Bard, R.M. Harmon and M. Fong with S.A. Guedon. 1988. Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Expansion of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Metcalf Substation, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-10006 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., M.V. Farnsworth, D.M. Garaventa, S.A. Guedon and M.D. Meyer. 1987. Historic Property Survey of the Proposed Capitol Expressway Commuter Lane Project, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-09544 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., D.M. Garaventa, M.R. Fong, and S.A. Guedon. 1988. Cultural Resources Assessment of Monterey Oaks Mobile Home Park Development Plan, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-10399 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., D.M. Garaventa and M.E. Gallagher. 1987. Addendum to Cultural Resources Assessment of the Koll-Coyote Project Located North of Bailey Avenue Between Monterey Road and Santa Teresa Boulevard in Coyote Valley, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-9197 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., D.M. Garaventa and S.A. Guedon. 1988. Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Hellyer Avenue Pedestrian Bridge in the City of San Jose and Unincorporated Land of Santa Clara County, California. Report S-09892


on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., R.M. Harmon, S.A. Guedon, M.D. Meyer, P.M. Ogrey, R.T. Schinowsky, J.F. Thomas and M.R. Corbett. 1986. Cultural Resources Survey of North Coyote Valley Assessment District Infrastructure Project Areas, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-11912 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L., R.M. Harmon, R.T. Schinowsky and S.A. Guedon. 1985. Cultural Resources Assessment of the Koll-Coyote Project Located North of Bailey Avenue Between Monterey Road and Santa Teresa Boulevard in Coyote Valley, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-7389 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Anastasio, R.L. and J.F. Thomas. 1985. Site Record Form for CA-SCl-576 (also known as Nolte-North Coyote D). On file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Archaeological Resource Management (ARM). 1989. Cultural Resource Evaluation for a Parcel on Monterey Road in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara. Report S-11256 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1991. Preliminary Report on Cultural Resources in the Santa Teresa Park Master Plan Study Area. Report S-13336 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1994. Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Blossom Valley Bible Church Project in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara. Report S-16710 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1996. Cultural Resource Evaluation of an Area of Land for the Monterey Grove Apartments in the City of San Jose. Report S-18972 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Archaeological Consulting and Research Service (ACRS). 1975a. Report of the Archaeological Resources Inventory for the Lands of Labrucherie, et al, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-4295 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1975b. Archaeological Test Excavations and Impact Evaluations, Lands of Labruchere, et al., San Jose, California. Report S-06370 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1976. Report of the Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Pyramid Homes Development, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-04249 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.


----------. 1977. Archaeological Reconnaissance and Literature Survey for the Proposed Shopping Center Additions at Snell and Blossom Hill Roads, San Jose, California. Report S-06371 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Asano, P. 1978. Site Record Form for CA-SCl-411H (The Dairy). On file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Bard, J.C. and C.I. Busby. 1986. The Central California Prehistoric Culture Sequence: A Preliminary Review of Implications for Santa Clara Valley Prehistory. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory 7, Part II:82-85. Coyote Press, Salinas.Bard, J.C., C.I. Busby, R.J. Dezzani, D.M. Garaventa, R.L. Anastasio, M.C. Bellman, S.L. Brock, S.A. Guedon, R.M. Harmon, M.D. Meyer, E.L. Moore, P.M. Ogrey, J. Pape, R.T. Schinowsky, E.W. Smith, M.A. Siskin, M.E. Tannam, J.F. Thomas, and D. DeVries. 1986. Site Testing Report for Archaeological Site CA-SCL-137 as Part of the Guadalupe Transportation Corridor Compliance with 36 CFR Part 800. Report S-08044 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Bard, J.C., C.I. Busby, D.M. Garaventa, L.S. Kobori, R.L. Anastasio, R.J. Dezzani, and M.E. Tannam. 1984a. A Presence/Absence Testing Proposal for Archaeological Site CA-SCL-137 as Part of the Guadalupe Corridor Transportation Project Compliance with 36 CFR Part 800. Report S-06854 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1984b. A Testing Proposal for Archaeological Site CA-SCL-137 as Part of the Guadalupe Transportation Corridor Compliance with 36 CFR Part 800. Report S-06858 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Bard, J.C., C.I. Busby, D.M. Garaventa, L.S. Kobori, R.L. Anastasio, R.J. Dezzani, J.T. Hall, R.M. Harmon, E.L. Moore, J.A. Parsons, E. Smith, M.A. Siskin, and M.E. Tannam. 1984. Presence/Absence Testing at Archaeological Site CA-SCL-137, as Part of the Guadalupe Transportation Corridor Compliance with 36 CFR Part 800. Report S-06859 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Bard, J.C., D.M. Garaventa, R. Anastasio and R.M. Harmon. 1982. Santa Teresa Research Park: Cultural Resources Assessment of a Parcel Located Near Bailey Avenue and Highway 101, City of San Jose, California. Report S-4913 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Bard, J.C., M.C. Kennard, L.R. Porter, C.I. Busby and M.E. Tannam. 1982. A Backhoe Testing Program of CA-SCL-2, Santa Teresa Research Park, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-7506 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Barnes, T.C., T.H. Naylor, and C.W. Polzer. 1981. Northern New Spain: A Research Guide. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.


Bean, L.J. (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):1-29.----------. 1954. Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24 and 25, Berkeley.Beck, W.A., and Y.D. Haase. 1974. Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Bennyhoff, J.A. 1994. Central California Augustine: Implications for Northern California Archaeology. In R.E. Hughes (ed.), 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 No. 52, Berkeley.----------. 1977. The Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications 5. University of California, Davis.Bente, V.G. 1979. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Historical Resources: Proposed Freeway Construction Route 101, PM 17.2/29.6 Santa Clara County. Report S-4681 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Bingham, J. 1983. Archaeological Survey Report Widening of Route 82 South of San Jose, Santa Clara County, 04-SCL-82 P.M. 0.3/4.9. Report S-06025 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.BioSystems Analysis, Inc. 1989. Technical Report of Cultural Resources Studies for the Proposed WTG-West, Inc. Los Angeles to San Francisco and Sacramento, California Fiber Optic Cable Project. Report S-11396 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Bolton, H.E. 1930. Anza’s California Expeditions. Five Volumes. University of California Press, Berkeley.Breschini, G.S. 1976. Observations on the Human Skeletal Remains near the Corner of Tuers and Yerba Buena Roads, South San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-04289 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Breschini, G.S., R. Edwards and T. Haversat. 1978. Intense Archaeological Surface Reconnaissance of the Hellyer Avenue Construction Project, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-04543 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Breschini, G.S., R. Edwards, T. Haversat, C. Detlefs, G.A. Laffey and M. Fazio. 1978. Hellyer Avenue South: an Intensive Cultural Resource Reconnaissance for


the Proposed Industrial Park South of Hellyer Avenue along Coyote Creek, San Jose, California. Report S-04546 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Broek, J.O.M. 1932. The Santa Clara Valley, California: A Study in Landscape Changes. N.V.A. Oosthoek's utig. Maatij., Utrecht.Busby, C.I. 1981. Letter Report Addenda: A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Yerba Buena Road/Sylvandale Connection. Report S-16897 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1988. Archaeological Assessment, Crow Lane Subdivision (APN 687-26-28), City of San Jose, California. Report S-10160 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1998a. Letter Report to Ms. Kathy Kovar, David J. Powers & Associates, 1885 The Alameda, Suite 204, San Jose, CA 95126. Regarding: Cultural Resources Literature and Records Review North Coyote General Plan Amendment Area, City of San Jose and Adjacent Unincorporated Areas, Santa Clara County, California. Dated May 15, 1998. Report on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1998b. Letter Report to Ms. Kathy Kovar, David J. Powers & Associates, 1885 The Alameda, Suite 204, San Jose, CA 95126. Regarding Cultural Resources Literature and Records Review Metcalf Road and State Route 101 Vicinity, City of San Jose and Adjacent Unincorporated Area, Santa Clara County. Dated August 14, 1998. Report on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Busby, C.I., P.E. Endzweig and D.M. Garaventa. 1981. A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Yerba Buena Road/Sylvandale Connection. Report S-16896 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Busby, C.I., D.M. Garaventa, S.A. Guedon and R.J. Dezzani. 1986. Addendum to: Site Testing Report for Archaeological Site CA-SCL-137 as Part of the Guadalupe Transportation Corridor Compliance with 36 CFR Part 800. Report S-08045 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Busby, C.I., D.M. Garaventa, M.E. Tannam and S.A. Guedon. 1996a. Historic Properties Treatment Plan: South Bay Water Recycling Program. Report on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1996b. Supplemental Report, Historic Properties Affected or Potentially Affected by the South Bay Water Recycling Program. Report S-18541 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.California (State of), Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation (CAL/OHP). 1973a. The California History Plan. Volume One -


Comprehensive Preservation Program. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.----------. 1973b. The California History Plan. Volume Two - Inventory of Historic Features. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.----------. 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.----------. 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.----------. 1990. California Historical Landmarks. Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.----------. 1990-98. Agenda and Minutes of the Quarterly Meeting of the State Historical Resource Commission. Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.----------. 1992a. California Points of Historical Interest. May 1, 1992.----------. 1995. DRAFT How to Read the Legal Statuses of Properties from the Directory. November. Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.----------. 1997. Title 14 Chapter 11.5. Regulations for California Register of Historical Resources. Effective January 1, 1998. Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.----------. 1998. Historic Properties Directory. Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.California (State of), Governor's Office of Planning and Research (CAL/OPR). 1994a. CEQA and Archaeological Resources. CEQA Technical Advice Series, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, California.----------. 1994b. CEQA and Historical Resources. CEQA Technical Advice Series, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, California.California, Department of Transportation, District 04 (Caltrans). 1977a. Request for Determination of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places - The Dairy [CA-SCl-411H]. Report S-5263 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1977b. Request for Determination of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places – Stevens Ranch. Report S-5345 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.California, Energy Commission (CEC). 1997. Rules of Practice and Procedure & Power Plant Site Certification. California Energy Commission, Sacramento.


----------. 1992. Instructions to the California Energy Commission Staff for the Review of and Information Requirements for an Application for Certification. California Energy Commission, Energy Facilities Siting and Environmental Protection Division, Sacramento.Cartier, R. 1980. Cultural Resource Evaluation for the Yamaoka Development in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara. Report S-08410 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1984a. Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Snell Avenue Pipeline Alignment in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara. Report S-06943 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1984b. Cultural Resource Evaluation of the First Assembly of God Project on Hellyer Avenue in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara. Report S-06729 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1987. Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Alamitos-Coyote Canal Abandonment Project in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara. Report S-9441 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1989a. Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Proposed Evergreen Canal and Coyote Canal and Coyote Canal Extension Abandonment Project in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara. Report S-10577 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1989b. Reported Cultural Resources Card file, Card C-1196 (Locus #1 after Cartier 1989a). On file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park..----------. 1989c. Reported Cultural Resources Card file, Card C-1197 (Locus #2 after Cartier 1989a). On file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park..Cartier, R., J. Bass, L. Crane, R. Jurmain, J. Reddington, E. Riffle, A. Ruby, J. Rusmisel, J. Welch and G. Wilson. 1993. Phase V Archaeological Monitoring Results at CA-SCL-137, the Guadalupe Corridor Transportation Project. Report S-15136 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Cartier, R., J. Bass, S. Ortman, R. Jurmain, K. Holanda, J. Reddington, E. Perry, E. Riffle and G. Wilson. 1993. The Archaeology of the Guadalupe Corridor. Report S-15131 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Cartier, R., E. Reese and J.C. Wizorek. 1994. Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Summer Dams Project. Report S-16730 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.


Cartier, R., J. Whitlow and C. Detlefs. 1978. The Archaeological Resources of 4-SLC-272. Report S-4508 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Chartkoff, J.L. and K.K. Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.Chavez, D. 1975a. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Frost and Grace Properties. Report S-04348 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1975b. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Chan Property Proposed for Subdivision. Report S-04346 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1976. Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the Santa Clara County Field Sports Park. Report S-4343 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1977a. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Santa Teresa Plaza Development Property in San Jose. Report S-04363 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1977b. An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of the Lands of Larwin. Report S-04359 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1980. Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Guadalupe Corridor Alternatives Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Santa Clara County, California. Report S-8387 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Clark, M.R. 1990. Initial Subsurface Testing for Archaeological Resources at CA-SCL-347 and Locus 1 for the Highway 85/101 Interchange, Santa Clara County, with Recommendations for Cultural Resource Management. Report S-12196 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1995. Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Proposed Great Oaks Water Company Storage Tank and Pipeline from Bernal Way to the Levin Property, San Jose, California. Report S-16778 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Compton, B. and M. Buss. 1987. Archaeological Survey Report, Proposed Construction of Two Additional Northbound and Two Additional Southbound Lanes on Route 101, 04-SCL-101 P.M. 26.1/35.1. Report S-09503 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Daniel, Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall, and W.R. Hildebrant. 1983. Archaeological Research of the Southern Santa Clara Valley Project: Based on a Data Recovery Program from Sites CA-SCl-54, CA-SCl-163, CA-SCl-178, CA-SCl-


237, and CA-SCl-241. Report S-6369 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Desgrandchamp, C. 1978a. Archaeology Survey Report, 04-SCL-101 P.M. 28.1/33.2, Proposed Highway Planting and Irrigation Systems on Route 101 from Ford Road to the Tully Road Overpass in Santa Clara County. Report S-04559 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1978b. Archaeological Survey Report, 04-SCL-82 P.M. 0.2, Proposed Improvements to Monterey Road in Santa Clara County. Report S-04562 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Dietz, S.A. 1976. A Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Edenvale Redevelopment Project Location in San Jose, California. Report S-04277 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1977a. Final Report of Archaeological Test Excavations of Freeway 04- SCl-101, Post Mile 17.2/29.4, Cochrane Road to Ford Road. Report S-04395 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1977b. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Additions to Snell and Blossom Hill Roads Shopping Center. Report S-04334 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Elsasser, A.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.----------. 1985. Review of the Prehistory of the Santa Clara Valley Region. Basin Research Associates, Inc., Hayward, California.----------. 1986. Part I: Review of the Prehistory of the Santa Clara Valley Region, California. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory 7, Salinas.Findlay, J.M. 1980. History of North First Street Redevelopment Area, San Jose, CA. MS on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.----------. 1985. From Llano de los Robles to Silicon Valley: Culture and Society in the Santa Clara Valley, 1769-1980. In A Judicial Odyssey: Federal Courts in Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties, edited by C.G. Fritz, M. Griffith and J.M. Hunter, pp. 3-19. Advisory Committee, San Jose Federal Court, San Jose.Flynn, K. 1975. Archaeological Survey of Parcel Located at Santa Teresa Expressway and Avenida Espanos, Santa Teresa Hills. Report S-4222 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1978a. Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Coyote Creek Flood Control Planning Study Area, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-4540


on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1978b. Archaeological Reconnaissance of a portion of Branham Lane, Vista Park to Route 101 and Snell Road from Branham to Blossom Hill Road. Report S-04485 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1978c. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Property Located on the Southern Corner of Coyote Road and Snow Drive. Report S-08490 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1989. Archaeological Survey of the Branham Village Development, Branham Lane at Snell Road, San Jose, California. Report S-12837 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Flynn, K. and W. Roop. 1974. Site Record Form for CA-SCl-178. On file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1980. Revised Site Record for CA-SCl-178. On file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Fong, M.R. 1989. Document of Record, Phase V Archaeological Monitoring Finds at CA-SCL-68 and CA-SCL-137, as Part of the Guadalupe Transportation Corridor Compliance with 36 CFR Part 800. Report S-10550 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Fredrickson, D.A. 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.----------. 1974. Cultural Diversity in Early California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. Journal of California Archaeology 1(1):41-53.----------. 1994. Archaeological Taxonomy in Central California Reconsidered. In R.E. Hughes (ed.), 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 No. 52, Berkeley.Galvan, P. 1967/68. People of the West: The Ohlone Story. Indian Historian 1920:9-13.Garaventa, D.M. 1988. Archaeological Assessment for Proposed Development at San Ignacio Avenue and Santa Teresa Boulevard, City of San Jose, California. Report S-09760 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Garaventa, D.M., R.L. Anastasio, J.C. Bard, R.M. Harmon and W. McCormack. 1983. Cultural Resources Survey and Preliminary Testing Report, Expanded


Edenvale Redevelopment Project, Sanitary Supplement Segment in the City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-08862 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Garaventa, D.M., R.L. Anastasio, R.M. Harmon and W.A. McCormack. 1983. Cultural Resources Survey, Santa Teresa Campus Park Project Located along Santa Teresa Boulevard at Bailey Avenue, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-6180 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Garaventa, D.M., M.K. Arbegast and M.R. Corbett. 1982. A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Senter Road Widening Between Reyes Street and Capitol Expressway, San Jose, California. Report S-05942 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. Garaventa, D.M., J.C. Bard and R.L. Anastasio. 1984. Cultural Resources Survey: Expanded Edenvale Redevelopment Project – Sanitary Supplement Segment – Phase II, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-06391 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Garaventa, D.M. and C.I. Busby. 1982. A National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Determination – The Dove Hill Road Stone Wall, City of San Jose, California. Report S-05720 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Garaventa, D.M., R.M. Harmon and W. McCormack. 1983. Cultural Resources Survey and Preliminary Testing Report, Expanded Edenvale Redevelopment Project, Sanitary Supplement Segment in the City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-06073 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Gorsen, M.F. 1999. The New and Improved CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Important Guidance for Controversial Issues. Environmental Monitor, Winter 1999. Association of Environmental Professionals, Sacramento.Hall, F. 1871. The History of San Jose and Surroundings, with Biographical Sketches of Early Settlers. A.L. Bancroft, San Francisco.Hall, J., M. Hylkema and L. Leach-Palm. 1988. Archaeological Excavations of Human Burials and a Rock Feature at CA-SCl-178 4-SCl-101 17.2/29.4 4216 - 117321. Report S-10230 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Harmon, R.M., D.M. Garaventa, M.R. Fong, A.M. Banet and S.A. Guedon. 1989. Cultural Resources Assessment of Property at 6238 Monterey Road, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-10877 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Hart, J.D. 1978. Companion to California. Oxford University Press, New York.


Hastings, R.B. 1975. Memorandum Dated July 23, 1975. File: 04-SCl-101 P.M. 18.3/27 Median Barrier and Signalization along Monterey Highway between Ford Road and Cochran Road. 04215 - 390771. Report S-4575 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.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. MS on file, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.Hernandez, M.S. 1980. Site Record Form, CA-SCl-427. On file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Holman, M.P. 1974. Letter Report to Mr. Richard Frisbie, Environmental Center, Santa Clara, CA. Regarding: Proposed Tulare Hills Development and adjoining open space in South San Jose, California. Report S-4553 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1979. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Lands of Mark in South San Jose, California. Report S-04612 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1987. Monterey/Ford Road Center Archaeological Reconnaissance. Report S-10485 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1988. Hellyer Canyon Archaeological Field Inspection. Report S-10462 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1989. Archival and Field Inspection of the 12 Proposed Caltrain Extensions Between San Jose and Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-10802 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1993. Archaeological Field Inspection of the Proposed Monterey Road at Bernal Road Project Area, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-15801 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1994. Letter Report to Mr. John Hesler, David Powers & Associates, San Jose, CA. Regarding: Archaeological Field Inspection of the Metcalf Road Safety Improvement Project, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-18054 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Hoover, M.B., H.E. Rensch, E.G. Rensch and W.N. Abeloe. 1966. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.Hughes, R.E. (ed.). 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 No. 52, Berkeley.


Hylkema, M.G. 1991. Archaeological Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance of the Cottle Road Property, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-13472 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Jackson, T.L. 1973. Proposed Highway Improvements, Cochran Road to Ford Road, Santa Clara County, An Archaeological Evaluation. Report S-04318 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1975. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the IBM Project Site on Bailey Avenue in San Jose. Report S-4414 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.James, W.F., and G.H. McMurry. 1933. History of San Jose, California, Narrative and Biographical. A.H. Cawston, San Jose. Jones, D.P. 1976. An Analysis of the Archaeological Significance Regarding the Coyote Project. Report S-4309 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.King, C.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. Report E-108/S-4248 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1976. Report on Site SCL-206, a Site Containing Indian Burials. Report S-08688 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, 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. Report E-265/S-4395 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, 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. Historical 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. Report E-756/S-5281 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.King, T.F. 1973. Archaeological Impact Evaluation: San Felipe Division, Central Valley Project. Part II The Direct Impact of San Felipe Division Facilities on Archaeological Resources. For U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, and the Frederick Burk Foundation, California State University, San Francisco. Report E-4/S-1849 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.


King, T.F. and P.P. Hickman. 1973. Archaeological Impact Evaluation: San Felipe Division, Central Valley Project. Part I The Southern Santa Clara Valley, California: A General Plan for Archaeology. For U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, and the Frederick Burk Foundation, California State University, San Francisco. Report E-4/S-1849 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Kobori, L.S. and J.C. Bard. 1980. An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Revised Yerba Buena Extension from San Felipe Road to Hellyer Interchange at U.S. Highway 101, San Jose, California. Report S-05287 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Kobori, L.S. and J.R. Liversidge. 1979. An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed Yerba Buena Extension from San Felipe Road to Hellyer Interchange at U.S. Highway 101, San Jose, California. Report S-05256 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Krase, E. 1987. Secondary Architectural and Historical Evaluation, Lester Farm, Coyote Valley. Report S-9408 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, 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.Laffey, G.A. 1991. Historical Background for the Hassler Ranch for the Cerro Plata Rezoning EIR. Report S-16358 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1992. Historical and Architectural Evaluation for the Cottle Ranch, Located at 3993 Silver Creek Road in the County of Santa Clara. Report S-16351 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1996a. Historical and Architectural Evaluation for the Mesa Dolores Entrance Structure on San Ramon Drive near Senter Road in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara. Report S-18161 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1996b. Mesa Delores Tower. Report S-18676 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Laffey, G.A., C. Detlefs, R. Cartier and J. Whitlow-Hofmann. 1986. The Old Stone Building: Its History and Archaeology. Report S-7946 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Levy, R. 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.


Lillard, J.B., R.F. Heizer and F. Fenenga. 1939. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 2.Margolin, M. 1978. The Ohlone Way: Indian Life In the San Francisco - Monterey Bay Area. Heyday Books, Berkeley.Marshall, C. and M.R. Clark. 1995. Archaeological Monitoring for the Great Oaks Water Company Pipeline for the Shea Levin Project, San Jose, California. Report S-17550 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Melandry, Mara. 1976a. Archaeological Survey Report for Construction of Freeway, 04-SCl-101, Post Miles 17.6/29.4, Cochran Road to Ford Road. Report S-04398 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1976b. Site Record Form, CA-SCl-238. On file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1976c. Site Record Form for CA-SCl-239. On file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Miller, L.R. 1948. The History of the San Jose and San Francisco Railroad. M.A. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Milliken, R.T. 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.Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Moratto, M.J., T.F. King, and W.B. Woolfenden. 1978. Archaeology and California’s Climate. Journal of California Anthropology 5:127-140.National Park Service (NPS). 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.Oetting, A.C. 1981. An Archaeological Assessment of the Senter Road Improvement Project, Umbarger Road to Nokomis Drive, San Jose, California. Report S-08383 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Pace, P. 1975. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, San Jose.Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc. and Kobori Environmental Management Corp. 1983a. Request for No Adverse Effect Determination for Archaeological Resources in Accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, CA-SCL-137. Report S-06062 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.


----------. 1983b. Data Recovery Plan for the Guadalupe Corridor Transportation Project, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-06066 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Roberts, J.A. 1977. Report of the Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Proposed IBM West Coast Programming Development Center, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Report S-4365 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Roop, W. 1976a. Archaeological Impact Evaluation "Coyote Valley Community Plan," South Santa Clara County, California. Report S-4314 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1976b. Archaeological Impact Evaluation, Hewlett-Packard Assembly Plant, Proposed along Coyote Creek, San Jose, California. Report S-04313 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1977a. Park Group A – La Colina, Foothill and Terrell. Report S-04393 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1977b. A Survey Reconnaissance of a Parcel Located at the Intersection of Bayshore Freeway with Coyote Road. Report S-04341 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1977c. A Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of an Approximately 11.7 acre Parcel of Land. Report S-04387 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1978. A Preliminary Surface Reconnaissance of the Proposed Lands of Arcadia Development Company Residential Project. Report S-04498 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1979a. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Proposed Park and Ride Site, Snell Road at West Valley Freeway. Report S-04687 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1979b. Observation of Borings, Snell Road Park and Drive Site. Report S-10772 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1980. Archaeological Test Excavation of CA-SCL-137 and Evaluation of Proposed Shopping Center Additions and Snell Road Widening, San Jose, California. Report S-08527 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1983. Results of a Preliminary Prehistoric Archaeological Reconnaissance of a 2300-Acre Parcel in San Jose, California. Report S-6289 on


file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1991. A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Proposed City/County Park Adjacent to Coyote Creek North of Metcalf Road. Report S-13430 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Ruby, A. 1997. Archaeological Survey of Two Parcels of Land Located at 476 Blossom Hill Road and 700 Dado Street, San Jose, California. Report S-19237 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.San Jose (City of) Department of City Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement (SJ/PBCE). 1994. Focus on the Future San Jose 2020 General Plan. Adopted August 16, 1994. Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, City of San Jose, CA.San Jose Historic Landmarks Commission (City of San Jose, Department of City Planning) (SJHLC). 1975. San Jose, An Inventory of its Historical and Architectural Heritage. Parks and Recreation Department, San Jose.----------. 1991-1997. Synopses. Regular Meetings of the Historic Landmarks Commission, City of San Jose, California. On file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.----------. 1996. List of Historical Districts or Historic Sites Designated by the City Council as Landmarks of Special Historical, Architectural, Cultural, or Aesthetic Value or Interest (HL 77-1 through HL 95-104). Revised 4/96. On file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro. San Jose Historic Landmarks Commission and City of San Jose, Historic Landmarks Commission and Department of City Planning and Building (SJHLC/CPB). 1994-1996. City of San Jose Historic Resources Inventory (City Council Resolution 58957 adopted August 1987: Revised May 1994). With updates (May 1994 to September 1996; Current as of March 1997). City of San Jose Historic Landmarks Commission and Department of City Planning, San Jose.Santa Clara County. 1995. Santa Clara County General Plan: Charting a Course for Santa Clara County’s Future: 1995-2010. County of Santa Clara Planning Office, San Jose, California.Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission (SClCoHHC). 1979. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, San Jose.----------. 1980-1994. Additions to the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, San Jose. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors. n.p.----------. 1998. Draft [Computer print out with minor annotations]. Individual listings on the County of Santa Clara Heritage Resource Inventory (222 pages of variable pagination). Copyright 1997. Copy provided 6/19/98 by Ms. Beth Wyman, County of Santa Clara, Environmental Resources Agency, Housing and Community Development Program.


Sawyer, E.T. 1922. History of Santa Clara County, California. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.Schmucker, B. 1986. A Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Gilroy Cogeneration Project Area, Gilroy, California. Report S-8237 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Shipley, W. 1978. Native Languages of California. In, R.F. Heizer (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, pp. 80-90. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Stickel, E.G. and R.J. Shlemon. 1980. Recent Soil-Geomorphic Methods for Delimiting Archaeological Sites. Report S-4838 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Theodoratus, D.J., R.D. Ambro, B.J. Peck, M. Crist, C.B. Hanson, C.M. Blount, R.M. Begell, A.M. Hurtado, and P.J. McGuire. 1979. Cultural Resources Evaluation: Edenvale Redevelopment Project Area Expansion. Report S-04827 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Thompson, A.W. 1857. Map of the Survey of the Rancho La Laguna Seca, Including part of Santa Teresa. Finally confirmed to Liberata C. Bull et al. Heirs of Wm [William] Fisher. Surveyed under the directors of the U.S. Surveyor General. February 1857. Map on file, #196, California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento.Thompson, G. H. and A.T. Herrmann. 1881. Plat of the Pueblo Lands of San Jose. Finally confirmed to Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Jose. Surveyed under Instruction from The United States Surveyor General by G. H. Thompson (1866) and A.T. Herrmann (1879). Final Approval April 2nd, 1881. Map on file, California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento.Thompson and West. 1876. Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. Thompson and West, San Francisco (reprinted by Smith and McKay, San Jose, 1973).United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 1917. Morgan Hill. Topographic map, 15-minute series. United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park.----------. 1919. New Almaden. Topographic map, 15-minute series. United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park.----------. 1980a. Morgan Hill, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5' series. Map on file, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park (1955, photorevised 1980).----------. 1980b. Santa Teresa Hills, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5' series. Map on file, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park (1953 photorevised 1980).


United States Department of the Interior, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service (USNPS). 1998. National Register of Historic Places Index by Property Location. Properties in California, listed determined, and pending. Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1978. Report Number: FHWA-CA-EIS-74-13-F: Route 101 in Santa Clara County PM 17.2 to PM 29.4, 0.6 mile south of Cochran Road in Morgan Hill to 0.7 mile north of Route 82 near Ford Road in San Jose, Administrative Action Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Statement. Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) 23 U.S.C. 128(a) and 49 U.S.C. 1653(f) and 16 U.S.C. 470(f) and Division 13 California Public Resource Code.United States War Department, Corps of Engineers, United States Army (U.S. War Dept). 1943a. Los Gatos, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15-minute series. United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park.----------. 1943b. Morgan Hill, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15-minute series. United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park.Wallace, J. 1858. Plat of the Rancho Yerba Buena or Socayre [finally confirmed to] Antonio Chaboya. Surveyed under instructions from the U.S. Surveyor General by John Wallace, Dep[upty] Sur[veyo]r. October 1858. Map on file, #183, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento.Weigel, L.E. 1984. Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Construction of Route 85/87 in Santa Clara County, 04-SCL-85 0.0/17.9. Report S-06972 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Wiberg, R.S. 1990. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Proposed Cerro Plata Golf Course, San Jose, California. Report S-11712 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Wilson, S. 1975. Supervision of the Grading Activities near the Archaeologically Sensitive Area in the Southeastern Portion of the IBM West Coast Programming Center Job Site. Report S-4397 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.Winter, J.C. 1977a. The Archaeological Resources and Impact of the Highway 101 Bypass Project. A Proposal Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. Report S-04326 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.----------. 1977b. Test Excavations at 4-SCL-137: Site Significance, Development Impacts and Mitigation Recommendations for the Bloom Property on Snell Avenue, San Jose. Report S-04330 on file, Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.


Documents

8 · Web view8.3 Cultural Resources Cultural resources are historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, historic architectural and engineering features and structures, and sites