BRIDGE STREET BRIDGE PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT

January 2016

PREPARED FOR

California Department of Transportation District 5 50 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5415

City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420

PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Proposed Undertaking: The City of Arroyo Grande (City) proposes to replace or rehabilitate existing Bridge 49C-0196 at Bridge Street. Bridge Street follows a north-south corridor approximately 0.2 miles east of U.S. Highway 101 in the city of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. The bridge provides vehicular access over Arroyo Grande Creek, which runs through the city approximately parallel to State Route 227.

Purpose and Scope of the Survey: Quincy Engineering, Inc. retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to prepare California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) cultural resources documentation in support of the proposed Bridge Street Bridge Project (project). The intent of this Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) is to achieve Section 106 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance for the project as it relates to archaeological resources.

This ASR was prepared in accordance with Caltrans’s most recent edition of Standard Environmental Reference, Volume 2, Cultural Resources (2014a).

Investigation Constraints: Approximately 30 percent of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is paved or landscaped, and approximately 30 percent is heavily vegetated, which precluded a comprehensive surface examination. The remaining portion of the APE, primarily within the designated picnic area and within some areas of the creek banks adjacent to the creek bottom had good to excellent visibility (75-90 percent) at the time of the survey.

Number and Types of Identified Archaeological Resources: The intensive pedestrian survey identified no previously unrecorded historic or prehistoric archaeological resources within the archaeological APE. A very sparse scatter consisting of six Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum), five highly fragmented bottle glass pieces (from the same vessel), and a glass perfume stopper was observed 5 meters north of the single picnic bench in the northeastern portion of the APE. The scatter was observed on a slope, which appears to have been modified during the development of the park/picnic area. No burned soils or metal fragments were observed. Given the extremely low density of the scatter and the disturbed context, the shell scatter does not constitute an archaeological resource.

In consultation with the Principal Investigator and District 5 Archaeologist, Kelda Wilson (Personal Communication to Leroy Laurie 2013), the shell and glass scatter was not formally recorded and it is considered exempt from evaluation as described in Attachment 4 of the First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (Caltrans 2014b).

Conclusions: No archaeological resources were identified within the APE. The results of the literature search, Native American coordination, and pedestrian survey indicate that the archaeological APE has low sensitivity for the presence of archaeological resources.

Policy Statement: It is Caltrans’s policy to avoid cultural resources whenever possible. If buried cultural materials are encountered during construction, it is Caltrans’s policy that work stop in that area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the find. Additional survey will be required if the project changes to include areas not previously surveyed.

Disposition of Data: This report will be filed with Caltrans District 5, County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works, Quincy Engineering, Inc., Central Coastal Information Center at University of California, Santa Barbara, and the SWCA San Luis Obispo, California, office. All field notes, photographs, and records related to the current study are on file at the SWCA San Luis Obispo office.

SWCA Environmental Consultants i Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

This page intentionally left blank.

SWCA Environmental Consultants ii Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...... I

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 4 PROJECT SETTING ...... 4 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF PROJECT ...... 4 Replacement Alternative ...... 4 Rehabilitation Alternative ...... 4 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ...... 5

SOURCES CONSULTED ...... 5 SUMMARY OF METHODS AND RESULTS ...... 5 Previous Studies ...... 6 Previously Recorded Sites within 0.5 Mile of the Archaeological APE ...... 6 SUMMARY OF NATIVE AMERICAN COORDINATION ...... 6

BACKGROUND ...... 9 ENVIRONMENT ...... 9 Geoarchaeological Setting and Sensitivity ...... 9 ETHNOGRAPHY ...... 10 PREHISTORY ...... 11 Paleoindian Period/Paleo-Coastal Tradition (ca. 10,000–6500 B.C.) ...... 11 Milling Stone Period (ca. 6500–3500 B.C.)...... 12 Early Period and Early-Middle Transition Period (3500–600 B.C.) ...... 12 Middle Period (600 B.C.–A.D. 1000) ...... 13 Middle-Late Transition Period (A.D. 1000–1250) ...... 13 Late Period (A.D. 1250–Historic Contact) ...... 13 HISTORIC OVERVIEW ...... 14 Project Area Specific Review ...... 15

FIELD METHODS ...... 15

STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 15 FIELD SURVEY ...... 15 CONCLUSIONS ...... 16 Unidentified Cultural Materials ...... 16 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains ...... 16

REFERENCES CITED ...... 17

SWCA Environmental Consultants iii Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Figures

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ...... 2 Figure 2. Project Area Map ...... 3 Figure 3. Area of Potential Effects Map ...... 7

Appendices

Appendix A. Records Search Results Appendix B. Native American Correspondence Appendix C. Photographs

SWCA Environmental Consultants iv Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

INTRODUCTION Dates of the Investigation: SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) requested a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search from the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) at the University California, Santa Barbara on August 31, 2012. SWCA contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on August 31, 2012, requesting a search of their Sacred Lands File for traditional cultural resources. A total of 26 Native American groups and/or individuals who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area were contacted by mail on April 16, 2013, and by telephone from May 14-15, 2013. SWCA archaeologist Leroy Laurie performed an intensive pedestrian survey of the archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) on April 12, 2013. This report was completed in July 2015.

Location of the Survey: The project archaeological APE is located along Bridge Street in Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, in an unsectioned portion of Township 32 South, Range 13 East. The archaeological APE appears on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Oceano, California 7.5-minute quadrangle. Survey of the archaeological APE included approximately 2 acres.

Maps: Figure 1 is a project vicinity map depicting the general vicinity of the project in San Luis Obispo County. Figure 2 is a project location map of a portion of the USGS 7.5-minute Oceano quadrangle showing the specific location of the project area. Figure 3 is the APE map, showing all of the areas that have been surveyed within the archaeological APE.

Project Personnel: SWCA project personnel meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (National Park Service 1983). Leroy Laurie, B.S., who has more than 14 years of experience in California archaeology, served as the field archaeologist and co-author of this report. Heather Gibson, Ph.D., Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), acted as the principal investigator.

Regulatory Setting: Under the First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (Caltrans 2014b), Caltrans is responsible for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Accordingly, the current study was completed in accordance with Caltrans’s most recent edition of Standard Environmental Reference (SER), Volume 2, Cultural Resources (2014a) and under the provisions of Section 106 of the NHPA (Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 36, Part 800) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Section 15064.5 and Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21083.2).

Report Format: The format of this report follows Caltrans SER Exhibit 5.1: Archaeological Survey Report Format and Content Guide (Caltrans 2014a).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 1 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map

SWCA Environmental Consultants 2 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Figure 2. Project Area Map

SWCA Environmental Consultants 3 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Setting The project is located in the city of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California (Figure 1). The project involves either replacement or rehabilitation of an existing bridge that crosses Arroyo Grande Creek near the intersection of West Branch Street and Bridge Street, directly adjacent to the historic downtown Village of Arroyo Grande (Figure 2). The archaeological APE analyzed in this report includes the areas immediately surrounding the existing bridge, as well as portions of adjoining approach roads that may require minimal alterations to provide connection to the new/modified bridge structure and parking areas that may be utilized for staging.

Purpose and Scope of Project The Bridge Street Bridge has been a physical feature of Arroyo Grande since 1908 and functions as an important link between the south side of the city of Arroyo Grande and the downtown Village. A 1985 inspection of the bridge revealed a failed load-bearing truss diagonal and a 3-ton limit was imposed on the bridge. Subsequent inspections have identified additional structural deficiencies, including vehicle accident-related damage to the westerly pony truss, very poor concrete quality in the pier and abutment, significant bulging of the vertical surface of the south abutment under the bridge, cracks and spalling of the bridge deck, exposed reinforcing steel at the bottom of the concrete deck, rusting of un-painted steel beam in the short southerly span of the bridge, and an improperly cantilevered portion of the concrete wall directly under the steel support stringer in the original span of the bridge.

The City of Arroyo Grande (City) proposes to replace or rehabilitate existing Bridge 49C-0196 at Bridge Street. Bridge Street follows a north-south corridor approximately 0.2 miles east of U.S. Highway 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande. Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge provides vehicular access over Arroyo Grande Creek, which runs through the city approximately parallel to State Route 227. The surrounding land is generally level and is composed primarily of an urbanized business district.

Replacement Alternative This alternative would replace the existing bridge with an approximately 115-foot-long single span cast- in-place post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge. Portions of the existing bridge, such as the main trusses and railings would then be attached to the new structure as architectural components in order to recreate the historic feel of the existing bridge. Separated and raised wooden sidewalks would be designed to replicate the existing pedestrian sidewalks. This hybrid bridge would therefore marry the structural strength, seismic safety, and reduced maintenance of a modern design with the historic look and feel of the existing historic structure.

The bridge would be 44.5 feet wide and would consist of two 12-foot lanes with 2-foot shoulders. The bridge will also accommodate 5-foot sidewalks on both sides with additional width for the existing historical truss elements (each 1.25 feet wide). Vehicle railings and a concrete curb (each 1.5 feet wide) are also proposed between traffic and the truss elements along with 6-inch wide outside pedestrian railings.

Rehabilitation Alternative The preferred alternative with the public and most bridge stakeholders is a rehabilitation of the existing historic bridge. After much analysis and consideration, the rehabilitation alternative would consist of replacing the existing supplemental truss with a new higher strength supplemental truss in order to increase live load capacity. A new substructure consisting of cast-in-place abutments and pier wall along

SWCA Environmental Consultants 4 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

with a new cast-in-place approach span would also be necessary to upgrade the structure to the latest scour and seismic codes.

This alternative would begin similarly to the replacement alternative in that all portions of the existing bridge would be removed (the existing historic truss would be salvaged for later reinstallation on the new stronger supplemental truss). After the existing bridge substructure is removed, a new substructure would be constructed. Since the existing 100-foot truss length is set, a new pier in the channel would be required near the existing pier location. The existing 25-foot steel girder approach span would also be replaced with a new 25-foot steel girder approach span with a new cast-in-place concrete deck. It is not yet known if the exact steel girders would be reused; however, they are not visible from the deck and new steel girders would appear very similar to the existing.

Area of Potential Effects SWCA and Quincy Engineering, Inc. prepared an archaeological APE map (Figure 3), which delineates the project archaeological APE. This figure depicts all areas that are expected to be affected by the proposed project, including staging and construction access areas. It was plotted on an aerial photograph at a scale of approximately 1”=60’ and includes a bar scale. The purpose of the archaeological APE is to assist in the location and identification of significant cultural resources that may be listed in, determined eligible for, or appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) that may be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the proposed project.

The archaeological APE consists of a right-of-way for the proposed project as well as any areas of ground disturbance (including staging and stocking areas). The archaeological APE addressed in this report, is approximately 400 feet (north/south) by 380 feet (east/west) with a total surface area of 1.98 acres (Figure 3). The vertical APE along the northern bank will extend approximately 5 feet below current grade. Due to the steep slope of the southern embankment (i.e., the southern portion of the APE), no cutting is anticipated and up to 5 feet of fill may be required.

The APE map was prepared using proposed project plans commensurate with the scale and scope of the project. The proposed APE was reviewed by Caltrans staff and signed by Kelda Wilson, Caltrans Principal Investigator-Prehistoric Archaeology, and Tammy Mar, Local Assistance Engineer, on January 7, 2016.

SOURCES CONSULTED Summary of Methods and Results SWCA archaeologist Leroy Laurie requested a CHRIS records search for the project on August 31, 2012, from the CCIC, located at University of California, Santa Barbara. The CCIC consulted the following sources of information, along with official maps and records:

. National Register of Historic Places – Listed Properties (2012) . California Register of Historical Resources (2012) . California Inventory of Historical Resources (2012) . California State Historical Landmarks (1996 and updates) . California Points of Historical Interest (1992 and updates) . Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory and Determinations of Eligibility (2012)

SWCA Environmental Consultants 5 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Previous Studies The CCIC records search revealed that 37 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the archaeological APE. Of these studies, five included a portion of the archaeological APE. None of these studies, however, systematically inventoried the archaeological APE for archaeological resources utilizing intensive pedestrian survey.

Previously Recorded Sites within 0.5 Mile of the Archaeological APE None of the previously conducted cultural resources studies within the search radius identified the presence of any archaeological resources within or adjacent to the archaeological APE. Six previously documented archaeological sites, however, are located within a 0.5-mile radius. Site types include a prehistoric lithic scatter, a prehistoric campsite, a prehistoric habitation site with bedrock mortars, and a multi-component prehistoric and historic debris scatter (CA-SLO-2643/H).

CA-SLO-2643/H is closest of the six previously documented archaeological resources within 0.5 mile of the archaeological APE, located approximately 150 meters to the northeast. Haydu and Linder (2010) conducted Phase II test excavations at CA-SLO-2643/H. The results revealed a highly disturbed deposit that Haydu and Linder (2010) determined lacked depositional integrity and did not qualify as a historical resource as defined by CEQA. They concluded that testing likely exhausted all data potential of the site. Given the results of Haydu and Linder (2010), and the fact that CA-SLO-2643/H does not extend into the APE; no further consideration of the site is warranted for this study.

The remaining five archaeological resources are more than 0.25 mile from the APE (Appendix A). These include CA-SLO-238, a prehistoric lithic scatter; CA-SLO-393, a prehistoric shell midden; CA-SLO-408, a prehistoric shell midden; CA-SLO-413, a prehistoric shell midden with bedrock milling features; and CA-SLO-1266, a prehistoric lithic scatter.

Summary of Native American Coordination SWCA contacted the California NAHC via email on August 31, 2012, requesting a review of the Sacred Lands File. The NAHC responded on October 2, 2012, indicating that the search of the Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the project area.

The NAHC also provided a list of Native American groups and individuals who may have information regarding cultural resources within the project vicinity. SWCA mailed letters to each of the contacts on April 16, 2013, and conducted follow-up telephone calls and emails on May 14 and May 15, 2013. Appendix B includes an example of the letters sent to each interested party or individual listed by the NAHC and SWCA’s coordination efforts with each Native American contact. SWCA has received the following responses:

. Freddie Romero, cultural preservation consultant with the Santa Ynez Tribal Elders Council, responded via telephone on April 17, 2013, and stated that he had no comment on the project.

. Fred Collins, Northern Chumash Tribal Council (NCTC), Tribal Administrator, responded by email on April 29, 2013, requesting to meet with SWCA at the project site. Mr. Laurie met with Mr. Collins on May 7, 2013. In a May 9, 2013, letter to SWCA, Mr. Collins stated the “NCTC is recommending that a sampling of several areas of impact with small borings or test pits to make sure what is under the surface.”

SWCA Environmental Consultants 6 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Figure 3. Area of Potential Effects Map

SWCA Environmental Consultants 7 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

This page intentionally left blank.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 8 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

. Patti Dunton, on behalf of John Burch of the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo County responded by email on April 30, 2013, and stated “[w]e are not aware of any specific features or resources with the proposed project site. However, because of the location next to a creek and occupation area both prehistoric and historic it would be a good idea to have monitoring during all ground disturbing activities for the project.”

. Mona Tucker, yak tityu tityu Northern Chumash Tribe, stated on May 14, 2013, “[t]hat she was very familiar with the project area and that it should be considered sensitive for cultural resources and that worker use the utmost caution during the project.”

. Julie Lynn, Tumamait-Stennslie, Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians, responded by email on May 15, 2013, and stated “I don’t have knowledge of the area, but since it is by water, I would suspect that it would be sensitive to Cultural resources and be monitored.”

. Robert Duckworth, Salinan National Cultural Preservation Association, responded to a phone call by SWCA on May 14, 2013, and “suggested that the construction crews are trained to recognize cultural resources and that a monitor be present during initial excavations.”

BACKGROUND Environment The proposed project is located in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo County within the Village of Arroyo Grande adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek and within the broader Arroyo Grande Valley. Aside from the riparian corridor within Arroyo Grande Creek, the archaeological APE is predominately paved, landscaped, or built over.

Fauna that historically inhabited the Arroyo Grande area included black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.), black bear (Ursus americanus), and grizzly bear (Ursus horribilis), as well as other small mammals, reptile, amphibians, and birds (Jones 2000).

Geoarchaeological Setting and Sensitivity Mitchell and Young’s Initial Site Assessment for the project provide the following discussion of soils within the project (2012:5):

“…Holocene age alluvium consisting of unconsolidated deposits of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Explorations at the bridge site by Earth Systems Pacific were terminated in dense sand and gravel at approximately 70 feet below ground surface. The alluvial sediments are likely to be underlain by soft bedrock units of either the Obispo or Pismo Formation at an unknown depth beneath the site.”

In addition, Shallenberger (2004) conducted exploratory geotechnical borings immediately adjacent to the bridge and identified fill soils to approximately 2.5 feet at the northern entrance and to approximately 3.5 feet near the southern entrance.

Review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey indicates that soils in the project area consist of Holocene-age Mocho loam and deposited Riverwash (NRCS 2013). Mocho soils are very deep, well-drained Mollisols that formed in alluvium derived mostly from sandstone and shale rock sources (USDA 1983). Mocho soils are defined by weak

SWCA Environmental Consultants 9 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

soil horizon development (A/C) due to their young age (estimated to be late Holocene, or less than 4,000 years old). Buried A horizons are common below 40 inches.

Buried soils are common within Mocho soils; however, the presence of buried soils does not equate high potential for buried cultural resources. While there is always some potential for buried Holocene-age soils to contain cultural resources, researchers must account for factors that would have encouraged or discouraged human habitation or use in order to determine the likelihood of encountering such resources. Distance to water, landscape interface, and landform setting (slope, aspect, etc.) all contribute to the likelihood for cultural sites.

The project archaeological APE is located on the banks and along the alluvial terraces of Arroyo Grande Creek in the Arroyo Grande Valley. Early historical descriptions of the Arroyo Grande Valley, such as that written by land developer, John F. Beckett in 1898, describe the region as, “…a tangled mass of brush, vines and trees, of so dense a growth that the creek had no channel but spread over the entire valley during a fresher” (reported by Jean Hubbard, Five Cities Press Recorder, September 21, 1994). While this description is specific to the point in time observed by Beckett, it suggests that portions of the Arroyo Grande Valley may not have been favorable activity areas, at least in late prehistoric times.

To date, no buried cultural sites have been recorded in either the Arroyo Grande or Cienega Valleys. Dozens of archaeological sites are known to occur throughout this region, but the lack of known buried archaeological sites suggests a diminished sensitivity for the presence of intact deposits buried by natural processes.

Ethnography The project is located within lands traditionally occupied by the Chumash. However, the precise location of the boundary between the Chumashan-speaking Obispeño Chumash and their northern neighbors, the Hokan-speaking Playanos Salinan, is currently the subject of debate (Milliken and Johnson 2005). Jones and Waugh (1995:8) state that “those boundaries may well have fluctuated through time in response to possible shifts in economic strategies and population movement.”

The term “Chumash” is derived from a Native American word, initially applied to the people living on Santa Cruz Island (King 1994:6). Chumash now refers to the entire linguistic and ethnic group of societies that occupied the coast between San Luis Obispo and northwestern Los Angeles County, including the Santa Barbara Channel Islands and inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. Neighboring groups included the Salinan to the north, the Southern Valley Yokuts and Tataviam to the east, and the Gabrielino (Tongva) to the south.

The effect of mission influence upon local native populations was devastating. The dissolution of their culture alienated them from their traditional subsistence patterns, social customs, and marriage networks. European diseases, against which they had no immunity, reached epidemic proportions, and Chumash populations were decimated (Johnson 1987). The increase in agriculture and the spread of grazing livestock into their collecting and hunting areas made maintaining traditional lifeways increasingly difficult. Although most Chumash eventually submitted to the Spanish and were incorporated into the mission system, some refused to give up their traditional existence and escaped into the interior regions of the state, as refugees living with other tribes.

With the secularization of mission lands after 1834, traditional Chumash lands were distributed among grants to private owners. Only in the area of Mission Santa Barbara and Mission San Fernando del Rey were several small ranchos granted to neophytes of these missions, providing a secure home and gardens for a few people. Most Chumash managed to maintain a presence in the area into the early twentieth

SWCA Environmental Consultants 10 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

century as cowboys, farm hands, and town laborers. The Catholic Church provided some land near Mission Santa Ynez for ex-neophytes. This land eventually was deeded to the U.S. government in 1901 as a 127-acre reservation. This is the sole Chumash reservation, with a recent enrollment of only 158 people (California Indian Assistance Program 2003:144). Since the 1970s, Chumash descendants living in the city of Santa Barbara and the rural areas of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties have formed social and political organizations to aid in cultural revitalization, to protect sacred areas and archaeological sites, and to petition for federal recognition. Today, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is the only federally recognized Chumash tribe.

Prehistory The project area lies in what generally is described as the Central Coast Archaeological Region, which is one of eight arbitrary organizational divisions of the state (Moratto 1984:Fig. 1). This region extends southward from Monterey Bay through Big Sur to Morro Bay, and includes most of San Luis Obispo County.

Several chronological sequences have been devised to understand cultural changes within the Central Coast Region subsequent to the Paleoindian and Milling Stone periods. The Milling Stone period (ca. 6500–3500 B.C.) was first described by Wallace (1955, 1978) as part of his synthesis of earlier studies and development of a comprehensive southern California coastal region sequence, a chronological scheme that is still widely used today. Initially, Central Coast researchers relied on the cultural sequences developed for the San Francisco Bay area to the north, the Central Valley to the east, and the Santa Barbara region to the south. Breschini and Haversat (1980) proposed the Sur and Monterey Patterns to describe Central Coast occupations dating younger than 5,000 years. Jones (1993) and Jones and Waugh (1995) presented an integrated central coast sequence after the development of cultural resource management in the 1980s and ensuing excavations of numerous archaeological sites. Three periods are presented in their prehistoric sequence subsequent to the Milling Stone period: Early, Middle, and Late periods.

More recently, Jones and Ferneau (2002:213) updated the sequence following the Milling Stone period, as follows: Early, Early-Middle Transition, Middle, Middle-Late Transition, and Late periods. It has become apparent that the archaeology of the Central Coast Region subsequent to the Milling Stone period is distinct from that of the Bay Area and Central Valley, although the region has more in common with the Santa Barbara Channel area during the Middle and Middle-Late Transition periods, but few similarities during the Late period (Jones and Ferneau 2002:213).

Paleoindian Period/Paleo-Coastal Tradition (ca. 10,000–6500 B.C.) Occupation of California’s Central Coast Region is estimated to have occurred as early as the terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene, or about 10,000 years ago when sea levels were some 15–20 meters lower than today (Bickel 1978:7). Although there is evidence of occupation of the area during the early Holocene, only a few documented archaeological sites within the Central Coast Region can be assigned to a time period prior to about 6,000 years ago. It is likely that most sites of this period within this region are either beneath today’s ocean waters or were destroyed by coastal erosion. Estimates place the early Holocene shore in central and southern California at some 10 kilometers farther west than today’s coastline (Breschini and Haversat 1991:126). An example of the possible early antiquity of additional central coast sites is the evidence for early occupation on two of the northern Channel Islands, located off the coast from Santa Barbara. On San Miguel Island, Daisy Cave clearly establishes the presence of people in this area about 10,000 years ago (Erlandson 1991:105). On Santa Rosa Island, human remains have been dated from the Arlington Springs site to approximately 13,000 years ago (Johnson et al. 2002).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 11 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Milling Stone Period (ca. 6500–3500 B.C.) The Milling Stone period, initially defined by Wallace (1955, 1978) is characterized by an ecological adaptation to collecting, and by the dominance of ground stone implements generally associated with the horizontal motion of grinding small seeds; namely, milling stones (metates, slabs) and handstones (manos, mullers), which are typically shaped. Milling stones occur in large numbers for the first time, and are even more numerous near the end of this period. The Milling Stone period is also defined by large, simple core and flake tools, and large side-notched projectile points. As testified by their toolkits and shell middens in coastal sites, people during this period practiced a mixed food procurement strategy. Subsistence patterns varied somewhat as groups became better adapted to their regional or local environments.

Milling Stone period sites are common in both coastal and inland settings in central and southern coastal California, dating as early as 8,500 years ago. The Milling Stone period is roughly correspondent with King’s (1981, 1990) Early period of the Santa Barbara Channel area, although King’s Early period lasts longer (5500–1350 B.C.). The Cross Creek site (CA-SLO-1797) is a Milling Stone occupation site in San Luis Obispo that returned radiocarbon dates ranging between 9,500–4,700 years ago (Fitzgerald 2000:58). This appears to be the oldest recorded mainland shell midden site on the Central Coast, and the first coastal residential site to yield pre-8,000 year old calibrated radiocarbon dates. Four large, side-notched chert projectile points, 12 flaked stone cores, and two olive shell (Olivella spp.) beads were recovered among the milling slabs and handstones that dominated the artifact assemblage from the site.

Early Period and Early-Middle Transition Period (3500–600 B.C.) Although Jones and Ferneau (2002:213) have distinguished an Early-Middle Transition period, it is not well defined. Thus the transition phase is included in the following discussion of the sites and characteristics recognized for the Early period in the Central Coast Region.

There is an extensive series of shoreline midden deposits within the Central Coast Region during the Early period, signifying an increase in occupation of the open coast (Jones 1995; Jones and Waugh 1995, 1997). These include estuarine sites such as CA-SLO-165 in Estero Bay and open-coast sites in Monterey Bay area, including CA-MNT-73, CA-MNT-108, and CA-MNT-1228. Lithic artifact assemblages from these sites include Central Coast Stemmed Series and side-notched projectile points. Square-stemmed and side-notched points have also been found in deposits at Willow Creek in Big Sur (CA-MNT-282), and Little Pico II on the San Luis Obispo coast (CA-SLO-175) (Jones and Ferneau 2002).

The material culture recovered from Early period sites within the Central Coast Region provides evidence for continued exploitation of inland plant and coastal marine resources. Artifacts include milling slabs and handstones, as well as mortars and pestles, which were used for processing a variety of plant resources. Bipointed bone gorge hooks were used for fishing. Assemblages also include a suite of Olivella beads, bone tools, and pendants made from talc schist. Square abalone shell (Haliotis spp.) beads have been found in Monterey Bay, but not yet in the Big Sur or San Luis Obispo areas (Jones and Waugh 1997:122).

Shell beads and obsidian are hallmarks of the trade and exchange networks that flourished on the central and southern California coasts. Beginning at the end of the Milling Stone period, the archaeological record indicates that there was a substantial increase in the abundance of obsidian at Early period sites in the Monterey Bay and San Luis Obispo areas (Jones and Waugh 1997:124–126). Obsidian trade continued to increase during the following Middle period.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 12 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Middle Period (600 B.C.–A.D. 1000) During the Middle period, there was a pronounced trend toward greater adaptation to regional or local resources. For example, the remains of fish, land mammals, and sea mammals are increasingly abundant and diverse in sites along the California coast. Related chipped stone tools suitable for hunting were more abundant and diversified, and shell fishhooks became part of the toolkit during this period. Larger knives, a variety of flake scrapers, and drill-like implements are common during this period. Projectile points include large side-notched, stemmed, and lanceolate or leaf-shaped forms. Bone tools, including awls, are more numerous than in the preceding period, and the use of asphaltum adhesive is now common.

Notable technological innovations included the circular shell fishhooks, which first appeared at the start of the period. The introduction of shell fishhooks and the increased use of other capture devices, such as nets, appear to have led to a substantial focus on fishing in most coastal areas. A seasonal round settlement pattern was still followed, but large, permanently occupied settlements, particularly in coastal areas, appear to have been the norm by the end of the period.

Middle-Late Transition Period (A.D. 1000–1250) During the Middle to Late Transition period within the Central Coast Region, projectile points generally diagnostic of both the Middle and Late periods co-occur (Jones and Ferneau 2002:217). The points include large, contracting-stemmed types typical of the Middle period, plus Late period, small, leaf- shaped points, which likely reflect the introduction of the bow and arrow. In addition to the bow and arrow, hopper mortars are apparently introduced during this transition phase.

This Middle-Late Transition period is marked by relative instability and change, with major changes in diet, settlement patterns, and interregional exchange. The relatively ubiquitous Middle period residential shell midden sites found in this region were abandoned by the end of the Middle-Late Transition period, so most Transition period and Late period sites were first occupied during those periods (Jones and Ferneau 2002:213, 219). During the Middle-Late Transition period, the climate fluctuated between cooler, wetter periods and warmer, drier periods. During cooler, wetter periods, alluvial deposition increased; comparatively little deposition occurred in the drier intervals. Extended periods of relatively little rainfall, referred to as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA), produced droughts across the West between about A.D. 650–850 and A.D. 1150–1250 (Jones et al. 1999). Dry conditions during the MCA may have led to the abandonment of the coastal shell mound villages as primary residential locations. Settlement strategies were apparently reorganized and focused on a dispersed pattern, with the establishment of both coastal and interior habitation areas, coinciding with the exploitation of seasonally available resources.

Like their Middle period antecedents, dense concentrations of fish bones have been recovered from Middle-Late Transition period sites on the open coast (Jones 1995; Jones and Ferneau 2002:219). There is also some indication that residents relied on smaller fauna, including anchovies and rabbits. The sites at both Little Pico Creek and Willow Creek contain burials, some of which are group interments, with individuals in an extended position (Jones and Ferneau 2002:217–218). In addition to the diagnostic Cambria points, grave goods include several Olivella bead types (B2, B3, G2, and K1). Olivella G1 saucer beads may be diagnostic of this period.

Late Period (A.D. 1250–Historic Contact) Cultural materials such as temporally diagnostic shell beads and small, finely worked projectile points, help identify Late period sites throughout California. The small projectile points are associated with bow and arrow technology. Although shell beads were typical of coastal sites, trade brought many of these maritime artifacts to inland locations, especially during the latter part of the Late period. The end of the

SWCA Environmental Consultants 13 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Late period is recognized by the close of the eighteenth century, when the Spanish mission system was established.

Within the Central Coast Region, most sites inhabited during the Middle period exhibit little or no evidence of being occupied continuously into the Late period (Jones and Ferneau 2002:213, 219–220). This holds true for the Monterey Peninsula and Morro Bay areas, although much of the region still lacks a large inventory of well-sampled and well-dated Late period components.

Unlike the large Middle period shell middens, Late period sites are more frequently single-component deposits. There are also more inland sites, with fewer and less visible sites along the Pacific shore during the Late period. The settlement pattern and dietary reconstructions indicate a lesser reliance on marine resources than observed for the Middle and Middle-Late Transition periods, as well as an increased preference for deer and rabbit (Jones 1995). An increase in sites with bedrock mortars during the Late period further suggests that nuts and seeds began to take on a more significant dietary role.

Historic Overview European contact in the San Luis Obispo County region may have begun as early as 1587 with the visit of Pedro de Unamuno to Morro Bay, although some scholars have questioned this based on the ambiguity of Unamano’s descriptions (Mathes 1968). A visit to the region in 1595 by Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeño is better documented (Jones et al. 1994). The earliest well-documented descriptions of the area come from members of Gaspar de Portolá’s land expedition, which passed through the region in 1769 (Squibb 1984). Early travelers in the Central Coast Region reported seeing no large Native American villages like those noted in the Santa Barbara Channel area.

Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded in 1772, the fifth of 21 missions established by the Spanish in California. Within the boundaries of today’s city of San Luis Obispo, the mission has been carefully restored and is an excellent example of the period’s architectural style. The secularization of the missions during the Mexican period resulted in approximately 500,000 acres of former mission lands being granted to Mexican citizens in San Luis Obispo County. The period of prosperity associated with the ranchos extended into the American period, which began in 1846 when the county became a possession of the United States (San Luis Obispo 2006).

In 1869, Walter Murray founded the San Luis Obispo Tribune, providing locally based news for town and county residents (San Luis Obispo 2006). Roads were constructed throughout the county in the 1870s, primarily by Chinese laborers. In 1872, Captain John Harford began construction on the Pacific Coast Railway, which linked his wharf in the coastal town of Avila with San Luis Obispo.

During the southern California land boom of the 1880s, San Luis Obispo County was described as “the great butter and cheese belt of southern California,” with affordable land priced between $18 and $25 per acre (Dumke 1944). By April 1887, an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 people inhabited the region, and land prices increased dramatically. In 1894, the Southern Pacific Railroad completed a line from San Jose to San Luis Obispo.

The township of Arroyo Grande was founded in 1862 on land along Arroyo Grande Creek, which was originally granted to F. Z. Branch (Morrison and Hayden 1917). The landscape was rife with dense brush and willow trees. Branch gave prospective residents the use of any land they desired for five years, under the condition that the vegetation would be cleared and crops would be grown. The 1880s saw the development of the Pismo Wharf and the Pacific Coast Railroad, which boosted commerce and the population of Arroyo Grande. By 1911, the town was incorporated as a city, and it had a population of approximately 1,200 (Morrison and Hayden 1917).

SWCA Environmental Consultants 14 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Project Area Specific Review Archival map and aerial photograph review of the project area revealed that the same street layout, which is present today, of Bridge and Branch Streets was in place as early as 1886. Detailed Sanborn Fire Insurance maps reveal that many of the buildings that stand within and adjacent to the APE today were in place by 1931. Aerial photographs of the project area from 1939 depict a heavily vegetated riparian corridor, which contrasts the relatively open picnic area, which now occupies approximately 30 percent of the APE on the northern bank of Arroyo Grande Creek (Mitchell and Young 2012).

FIELD METHODS SWCA archaeologist Mr. Laurie conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the archaeological APE on April 12, 2013. Survey included the entire archaeological APE surrounding the existing bridge (Figure 3). Survey of the archaeological APE was accomplished using linear transects spaced no more than 2 meters apart. Within each transect, the ground surface was examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool- making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock [FAR]), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the current or former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics).

Approximately 30 percent of the archaeological APE is paved or landscaped, and approximately 30 percent is heavily vegetated, which precluded a comprehensive surface examination. The remaining portion of the APE, primarily within the designated picnic area and within some areas of the creek banks adjacent to the creek bottom had good-to-excellent visibility (75-90 percent) at the time of the survey (Appendix C, Photographs 1-2).

STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Field Survey The intensive pedestrian survey identified no previously unrecorded historic or prehistoric archaeological resources within the project archaeological APE. A very sparse scatter consisting of six Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum), five highly fragmented bottle glass pieces (from the same vessel), and a glass perfume stopper was observed 5 meters north of the single picnic bench in the northeastern portion of the APE. The scatter was observed on a slope, which appears to have been modified during the development of the park/picnic area. No burned soils or metal fragments were observed. Given the extremely low density of the scatter and the disturbed context, the shell scatter does not constitute an archaeological resource.

In consultation with the Principal Investigator and District 5 Archaeologist, Kelda Wilson (Personal Communication to Leroy Laurie 2013), the shell and glass scatter was not formally recorded and it is considered exempt from evaluation as described in Attachment 4 of First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California (Caltrans 2014b).

While visibility within the southern bank of Arroyo Grande Creek was greatly diminished at the time of survey, the northern bank (where the majority of project excavations will occur) had fair to good surface visibility. No buried archaeological deposits were noted in the portions of the exposed northern bank of Arroyo Grande Creek.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 15 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Conclusions No archaeological resources were identified within the APE. The existing bridge was constructed in 1908, and the existing layout of the streets and buildings in the vicinity was established in the early 1900s. The majority of proposed project excavations will occur within fill materials introduced during the early development of the project site. Project excavations below fill levels may encounter native soils; however, based on the results of the records search, field survey, and review of the subsurface setting of the APE, the likelihood that native soils containing intact archaeological resources within the APE is low. As such, given the amount of previous disturbance within APE, low geoarchaeological sensitivity, and a lack of identified archaeological resources, the archaeological APE is considered to have low sensitivity for the presence of buried and/or obscured resources.

Unidentified Cultural Materials If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during construction, it is Caltrans’s policy that work be halted in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Additional archaeological survey will be needed if project limits are extended beyond the present survey limits.

Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbances; State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 covers these findings. This code section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 16 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

REFERENCES CITED Bickel, P. McW. 1978 Changing Sea Levels along the California Coast: Anthropological Implications. Journal of California Anthropology 5:6-20. Breschini, Gary S., and Trudy Haversat 1980 Preliminary Archaeological Report and Archaeological Management Recommendations for CA-MNT-170, on Pescadero Point, Monterey County, California. Archaeological Regional Research Center, Cabrillo College. 1991 Early Holocene Occupation of the Central California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 125- 132. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2015a Standard Environmental Reference, Volume 2, Cultural Resources. California Department of Transportation. 2015b Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in California. California Indian Assistance Program 2003 2004 Field Directory of the California Indian Community. California Indian Assistance Program, Sacramento. Dumke, Glenn S. 1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library Publications, San Marino, California. Erlandson, Jon M. 1991 Early Maritime Adaptations on the Northern Channel Islands. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J.M. Erlandson and R. H. Colten, pp. 101–112. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Fitzgerald, Richard T. 2000 Cross Creek: An Early Holocene/Millingstone Site. California State Water Project, Coastal Branch Series Paper Number 12. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society, San Luis Obispo, California. Haydu, Damon and Marc Linder 2010 Archaeological Site Form: CA-SLO-2643/H. On file at the CCIC.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 17 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Hubbard, Jean. 1994 Excerpt from Five Cities Press Recorder article. September 21, 1994. Available at www.agharvestfestival.com/arroyograndevalley.htm. Accessed on February 19, 2013. Johnson, John R. 1987 Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Johnson, J. R., T. W. Stafford, Jr., H. O. Ajie, and D. P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D.R. Brown, K.C. Mitchell and H.W. Chaney, pp. 541–545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Jones, Terry L. 1993 Big Sur: A Keystone in Central California Cultural History. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(1):1–78. 1995 Transitions in Prehistoric Diet, Mobility, Exchange, and Social Organization along California’s Big Sur Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis. 2000 Climate and Vegetation. In: Fitzgerald, R. T. Cross Creek: An Early Holocene/Millingstone Site. California State Water Project, Coastal Branch Series Paper No. 12. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society. Jones, Terry L., K. Davis, G. Farris, S.D. Grantham, T.W. Fung, and B. Rivers 1994 Toward a Prehistory of Morro Bay: Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the Highway 41 Widening Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report prepared for Caltrans District 5, San Luis Obispo, California. Jones, Terry L. and Jennifer A. Ferneau 2002 Deintensification along the Central California Coast. In Catalysts to Complexity, Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 205-232. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 6. Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles Jones, Terry L. and Georgie Waugh 1995 Central California Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in California Archaeology 3. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1997 1994a Native American Placenames in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Agoura Hills. Topanga Anthropological Consultants, California. Jones, Terry L., G. M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, J. Vickar, W. G. Spalding, Douglas J. Kennett, Andrew York, and Phillip Walker 1999 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40:137-156.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 18 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

King, Chester D. 1981 The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis. 1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. Revised Ph.D. dissertation with a new preface and updated bibliography. In The Evolution of North American Indians, edited by David Hurst Thomas. Garland Publishing, New York. 1994a Native American Placenames in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Agoura Hills. Topanga Anthropological Consultants, California. 1994b Prehistoric Native American Cultural Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains. Report prepared for Topanga Anthropological Consultants, Topanga, California. Report on file, South Central Mathes, W. Michael 1968 Sebastian Vizcaino and Spanish Expansion in the Pacific Ocean, 1580-1630. California Historical Society, San Francisco. Milliken, Randall and John R. Johnson 2005 An Ethnogeography of the Salinan and Northern Chumash Communities – 1769 to 1810. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Submitted to California Department of Transportation, District 5. On file at SWCA Environmental Consultants, South Pasadena, California. Mitchell, William and Glenn S. Young 2012 Initial Site Assessment Bridge Street Bridge Replacement Project, Arroyo Grande, California. Submitted to Quincy Engineering, Inc. Moratto, Michael 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Morrison, Annie L., and John H. Hayden 1917 History of San Luis Obispo County and Environs, California, with Biographical Sketches of the Leading Men and Women of the County and Environs Who Have Been Identified with the Growth and Development of the Section from the Early Days to the Present. Los Angeles, California: Historic Record Company. National Park Service 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines [As Amended and Annotated]. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/local- law/arch_stnds_0.htm, accessed November 19, 2008.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 19 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2013 Online Web Soil Survey. Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm, accessed April 10, 2013.

Shallenberger, Dennis 2004 Conceptual Soils Engineering Report Bridge Street Bridge, Bridge Street at Arroyo Grande Creek Arroyo Grande, California. Prepared for John L. Wallace & Associates. March 26, 2004. On file with SWCA.

San Luis Obispo, City of 2006 A Brief History. Available at: http://www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us/briefhistory.asp. Accessed November 28, 2011.

Squibb, Paul 1984 Captain Portola in San Luis Obispo County in 1769. Tabula Rasa Press, Morro Bay, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1983 Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Paso Robles. Government Printing Office. Wallace, William. J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230. 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

SWCA Environmental Consultants 20 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Appendix A. Records Search Results

SWCA Environmental Consultants Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

SWCA Environmental Consultants

August 31, 2012

Central Coast Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3210

SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey Report and Historic Property Survey Report for the Bridge Street Bridge Project, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California (SWCA Project No. 22423)

Dear CCIC Staff:

Quincy Engineering, Inc. has retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to complete an Archaeological Survey Report and Historic Property Survey Report for the Bridge Street Bridge Project in Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. SWCA is to conduct an archival records search at the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), a pedestrian survey of the project site, and prepare technical reports outlining the results.

Please include the following information for the project area and within a 0.50-mile radius of its boundaries: • Mapped surveys • Mapped resources • Bibliographic list of studies • Full Copies of Studies that include all or a portion of the Project Area • Copies of entire Resource Records • Historic Properties Directories, e.g. National Register, California Register, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest • California Inventory of Historic Resources (OHP list)

Attached to this request is a map depicting the project site within unsectioned land in Township 31 South/Range 13 East. The map is comprised of portions of the Oceano and Arroyo Grande NE USGS 7.5' quadrangles, but note the project area is entirely on the Oceano quadrangle. Any comments you may have regarding this area would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me directly at (805) 440-8712, or email at [email protected]. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Leroy Laurie Cultural Resource Specialist

Bridge Street Bridge

Customer Name: SWCA N Central Coast Information Center Project Location: Arroyo Grande NE, Oceano Department of Anthropology University of California Historic Resources Map - 1 of 1 Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3210 (805) 893-2474 (805) 893-8707 FAX

0 95 190 380 570

. II

CJ Project Location CJ One Half Mile Radius Bridge Street Bridge

Customer Name: SWCA N Central Coast Information Center Project Location: Arroyo Grande NE, Oceano Department of Anthropology University of California Sites Map - 1 of 1 Sant.a Barbara. CA 931·06-3210 (805) 893-2474 (805} 893-8707 FAX

0 95 190 380 570

/ .. ,,/ ,· ·: -. - .. , .,· - .• ..', ., , I I

[:] Project Location [:] One Half Mile Radius Bridge Street Bridge

Cu~tomer Name· SW Proiect Loe at· IOff · Arroyo CA Grande NE Reports M , Oceana ap - 1 of 4

0

E-4196

CJ Project Location CJ One Half Mile Radius Bridge Street Bridge

Customer Name: SWCA Central Coast Information Center Project Location: Arroyo Grande NE, Oceano Department of Anthropology University of California Reports Map - 2 of 4 Santa Barbara, CA93106-3210 (805} 893-2474 (805) 893-8707 FAX

0 95 190 380 570

C] Project Location C] One Half Mile Radius Bridge Street Bridge

Customer Name: SWCA Central Coast Information Center Project Location: Arroyo Grande NE, Oceano Department of Anthropology University of California Reports Map - 3 of 4 Santa Barbara. CA 93106-3210 (805} 893-2474 (805) 893-8707 FAX

0 95 190 380 570

·.11

' ...... J J

, I

• ••

E-1569

CJ Project Location I 0 CJ One Half Mile Radius Bridge Street Bridg.e

Customer Name: SWCA N Central Coast Information Center Project Location: Arroyo Grand~ NE, Oceano Department of Anthropology University of California Reports Map - 4 of 4 Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3210 (805) 893-2474 (805) 893--8707 FAX

0 95 190 380 570 I.. .

f.'.!·~,~! I \ , .., ' .. .,,. :, I -:,.•" . ' I , r

I I I/n ,;,: Project Location I // D I I,'I E-1469 , ~'! D One Half Mile Radius ,~,.,//_. State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #\'·'-\\)-00 '2,.(o~:, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial 5l....O - 2~"1.~ NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 7 *Resource Name or#: AE-2057-1 P1. Other Identifi er: La Point Stree t Site *P2. Location: lRI Not for Publication D Unrestricted *a. County: San Lui s Obispo and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Oceana Date: 1965 (PR 1994)T 32S; R 13E; Rancho Arroyo Grande Land Grant; M.D. B.M. c. Address: City: Zip: d. UTM: Zone: lO ; 173909.37 mE/ 3892730.72 mN (G.P.S./ NAO 83) e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel#, directions to resource, elevation, etc. , as appropriate) Elevation: The site is located north of Branch Street and west of N. Mason Street in the City of Arroyo Grande. The site is bounded by La Point Street to the northwest, public parking lots to the northeast and southwest, and the Branch Street Deli rear parking to the southeast. Elevation ranges from 120 to 140 feet above mean sea level (ams!). *P3a. Descri ption: Located on a gentle south slope between Le Point Street and the Branch Street Deli parking lot, this multi-component si te was originally documented by Appli ed Earthworks in June 2010. The site contains a prehistoric shell midden containing dark friable soil, dense shell fragments, sparse Monterey chert debitage, mammal bone, and possible fire­ cracked rock, and a historic component consisting of two residences and a shed, and a deposit of ceramic fragments, solarized glass fragments, and other debris. The observed prehistoric component measures 75 meters (north/south) by 63 meters ( east/west), but it likely extends beyond Le Point Street and the three surrounding parking lots, obscured by pavement. An exploratory shovel probe exposed midden beyond 50 centimeters in depth. The historic component includes two wooden si ngle family residences which have witnessed several episodes of additions and a wood shed w ith a concrete foundation a nd corrugated metal roof. The prehistoric and historic archaeological sediments have been been been disturbed by earth movement from development, animal burrowing, continued refuse dumping, and other unknown factors. (Continued) *P3b. Resource Attributes: AP15 Habitation Debris. HP2 Single Fam ily Property. HP4 Ancillary Buil ding. *P4. Resources Present: lRI Building lRIStructure DObject lRISite DDistrict DEle ment of District DOthe r (Isolates, etc.)

P5b. Description of Photo: View of site (foreground), Shovel Probe location (middle), and Residence land shed (background) facing southwest.

*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: DH istoric D Pre historic lRIBoth

*P7. Owner and Address: City of Arroyo Grande, CA

*P8. Recorded by: Damon Haydu and Marc Linder Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 743 Pacific Street, Suite A San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

*P9. Date Recorded: 6/10/ 20 10

*P10. S urvey Type: Intensive Pedestrian Reconnaissance

*P11. Report Citation: None.

*Attachments : DNONE lRI Location Map lRISketch Map lRIContinuation Sheet D Build ing , Structure, and Object Record lRI Archaeological Record DDistrict Record Dlinear Feature Record D Milling Station Record DRock Art Record DArtifact Record D Photograph Record D Othe r (List): DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California - The Resources Agency Prirnr:1ry # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trino1nial ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Page 2 of 7 'Resource Name or#: AE-2057-1

"A1. Dimensions: a. Length: 75 m. (N/S) x b. Width: 63m. (E/W) 4725 square meters Method of Measurement: D Paced lfil Taped D Visual estimate D Other: Method of Determination (Check any that apply.): lfil Artifacts D Features lfilSoil D Vegetation D Topography D Cut bank D Animal burrow D Excavation lfilProperty boundary D Other (Explain):

Reliability of Determination: D High !RI Medium D Low Explain: Site boundaries undetennined due to paved surfaces and property boundary

Limitations (Check any that apply): lfil Restricted access lfilPaved/built over lfilSite limits incompletely defined D Disturbances D Vegetation D Other (Explain):

A2. Depth: 100 cm D None D Unknown Method of Determination: Test excavation units.

"A3. Human Remains: D Present D Absent D Possible lfil Unknown (Explain): None observed.

* A4. Features (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch niap.): Three structures are located within the site. A metal clad barn and a plywood clad residence at 202 Le Point were constructed after 1931, possibly converted from various outbuildings located on the site at the time. A third building at 132 Le Point was constructed soon after 1909, based on historic maps and the Folk Victorian architectural style.

*A5. Cultural Constituents (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc., not associated with features.): The site surface contains a variety of modern, historic, and likely prehistoric debris, including: amethyst, aquamarine, and clear glass (bottle, window, and auto); Fiesta Ware and white improved earthenware ceramics; other domestic refuse (plastic, rubber, metal, ceramics, etc.); and construction debris (bricks, mortar, concrete, nails and other hardware). Shell and bone food refuse includes large, relatively fresh-looking Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum) that likely is associated with the historical component of the site. Various other marine shellfish remains such as Littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea), Gaper clam (Tresus nuttallil), Washington clam (Saxidomus nuttal/1), Piddock boring clam (Penitel/a sp.), and surf clam (Mactra sp.), are likely part of a prehistoric shell midden deposit. Additionally, fragments of possible fire affected rock and Monterey chert shatter may be aboriginal in origin. All of these materials are mixed and randomly distributed on a ground surface covered in rodent burrows with no apparent depositional integrity. (See continuation for Phase 2 results.)

*A6. Were Specimens Collected? D No [&] Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify vmere specimens are curated.) Samples were collected from 7 shovel probes and 2 test excavation units. Materials were brought to the Applied EarthWorks, Inc. San Luis Obispo office.

"A7. Site Condition: DGood lfil Fair D Poor (Describe disturbances.): The integrity of the deposit is largely compromised. The prehistoric and historic archaeological sediments have been disturbed by earth movement from development, animal burrowing, continued refuse dumping, and other unknown factors.

"A8. Nearest Water: Arroyo Grande Creek is located approximately 150 meters south.

* A9. Elevation: 130 feet ams!

A10. Environmental Setting: (Describe culturally relevant variables such as vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect. exposure, etc.): The site is located on the north side of a gently sloping creek terrace within the downtown area of Arroyo Grande. The central portion of the site is vacant lot; the surrounding area is developed.

A11. Historical Information: The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (1886, 1890, 1891, 1895, 1903, 1909, and 1931) and architectural styles of standing structures provide some insight into the history of the area. The oldest structure mapped on the parcel was a hay barn which stood in the central portion of the lot between 1886 and 1931. The metal covered barn and plywood clad residence still standing at 202 Le Point were constructed after 1931, possibly converted from various outbuildings located on the site at the time. The building at 132 Le Point was constructed soon after 1909, based on the maps and the Folk Victorian architectural style.

(See Continuation Sheet 2)

DPR 523C (1/95) *Required information State of California -- The Resources Agency Prin1ary # J DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRl!I CONTINUATION SHEET Trinornial r --- Page 3 of 7 *Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) AE-2057-l

*Recorded by: M. Linder *Date: 10/7 /10 IBJ Continuation O Update

P3a (co11tinued) Following initial docun1entation, the site undervvent Phase 2 testing and significance evaluation, involving excavation of seven shovel probes (SHPs] and two lxlmeter test excavation units (TEUs]. Testing revealed a highly disturbed cultural deposit up to 100 centimeters deep composed of mixed prehistoric, historic, and modern materials. (See Archaeological Site Record for further details.)

AS (continued) Phase 2 testing included an intensive, close-interval walkover of the targeted study area to identify and mark with pin flags any surface-visible artifacts or cultural debris. The results of this guided placement of the initial subsurface sampling units. Al excavated a total of seven SHPs (50 centimeters in diameter, excavated in 20 centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 100 centimeters) to collect data on subsurface artifact distribution. Additionally, we excavated two TEUs (1 x lmeter in size, excavated in 10 centimeter arbitrary levels to a maximum depth of 100 centimeters) to provide broader stratigraphic exposure and to characterize the nature and content of the cultural deposit. Excavated sediments were dry screened through 1/8-inch mesh and all units were backfilled upon completion.

A total of seven shovel probes (SHPs) excavated where cultural materials were concentrated on the surface revealed a highly disturbed deposit throughout the project area. Cultural materials were most concentrated in the top 20 centimeters within sediments consisting of loose and poorly sorted dark grayish brown silty loam with varying clay content and 10 - 20 percent angular to rounded gravels of mostly shale and chert. Artifacts as found on the surface were present, along with a few Monterey chert flakes and historic square cut nails. As with the surface deposit, modern, historic and prehistoric debris were mixed in highly variable concentrations; due in large part to disturbances form heavy rodent activity, mechanical soil movement1 and plant root intrusion.

With increasing depth, quantities of cultural material and gravels diminished significantly in inverse relation to increasing clay content and soil compaction. In SHP 1, which had the highest concentration of material, combined fauna! and artifact counts went from 1030+ items in 0-20 centimeters depth to 140+ items in 20-40 centimeters depth. Other units had. similar but less dramatic results. Visible disturbance from rodents and other factors also decreased with depth. In five of seven shovel probes, marine shell extended to a greater depth than historic and modern material, reinforcing the idea of an older prehistoric deposit. Examined as a whole, these units did not reveal any horizontal patterning of cultural materials.

Two Test Excavation Units (TEUs) were placed in the site based on nearby shovel probe results and surface artifact concentrations. TEU 1 was located approximately 40 feet west ofa house, 60 feet north of the southern edge of the property. It revealed a deposit of mixed oflikely prehistoric, historic and modern material. Its main cultural stratum, extending from the surface to an average depth of 35 centimeters, contained sediments of very dark grayish brown silty clay with 10 to 15 percent gravels. The top 18 centimeters of this stratum is fairly loose and heavily disturbed by bioturbation and roots. A few angular chert fragments were observed in this stratum, but no definitive lithic debit.age. Several hundred marine shell fragments were observed, including: Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum), Littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea), Washington clam (Saxidomus nuttalli), Gaper clam (Tresus nutta/lii), and surf clam (Mactra sp.) (listed in order of quantity) and other unidentifiable shell fragments.

Additionally, a small quantity of land mammal bone was also noted, some of which was burnt. The majority of bone appears of historic to modern in origin; several pieces were saw cut. The same is likely true for most of the Pismo clam shell, which is a well known constituent of historic deposits in the area. Other historic to modern materials in this stratum included ceramics (white improved earthenware - some with transfer print, and porcelain), glass (clear, aqua, brown, amethyst, and milk glass - most of which is bottle glass), and construction debris (fragments of brick, cement, wire nails, etc.]

(Continued on Page 4.)

DPR 523L (1/95) "'Required information State of California - The Resources Agency Prin1ary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRi!I CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4· of 7 *Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) AE-2057-·I

*Recorded by: IYL Linder *Date: 10/7/10 IBJ Continuation D Update

AS (continued)

TEU 2 was situated 9 feet east of SHP 1, approximately 30 feet north of a corrugated metal shecL Similar to the first unit, TEU 2 contained a deposit of mixed of likely prehistoric, historic and modern material, only more concentrated near the surface. Extending from the surface to a depth of 18 centimeters, the main cultural stratum contained very dark grayish brown silty clay loam with approximately 10 percent gravels. These sediments appeared highly disturbed, with highly variable compaction and evidence of heavy rodent burrowing. Dense marine shell in this stratum includes Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum), Littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea), Washington clam (Saxidomus nuttalli) and other bilvalve species. A large quantity of this shell was highly fragmented; pieces less than O,Scm were not collected or quantified. The only possible lithic artifact found in this stratum was a marginal flake of Monterey chert

Situated closer to a historically documented structure, this unit had a higher concentration of structural materials in this upper stratum, including abundant brick fragments, concrete/mortar, milled lumber fragments, square cut nails, mirror glass, and other items (most concentrated in the eastern half of the unit). Additional historic to modern debris observed includes bottle glass, likely pig bones (one of which was saw cut), and plastic.

From 18 to approximately 40 centimeters depth, sediments became very compact dark grayish brown silty clay with less than 5 percent gravels. Irregular soil structure in this stratum indicated continued disturbance from likely mechanical agents and rodent activity. Cultural materials were much less concentrated, becoming increasingly sparse with depth. Structural debris as above (concrete, wood, and square cut nails), bottle glass, marine shell, and some charcoal were present in small quantities.

Below 40 centimeters, sediments became extremely compact and cemented very dark gray silty clay with less than 5 percent gravels and minimal obvious disturbance. Extremely sparse shell and historic debris found in this stratum were likely brought in by rodents. This virtually sterile stratum marked the end of this unit; it was terminated at 60 centimeters depth.

*A12. Age: CillPrehistoric D Protohistoric D 1542-1769 D 1769-1848 D 1848-1880 Cill 1880-1914 001914-1945 Cill Post 1945 D Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: See Historical Information section (All)

A13. Interpretations (Discuss data potential, function[s], ethnic affiliation, and other interpretations): The cultural constituents found in this site include prehistoric shell midden, historic debris, and modern refuse. These materials occur in a highly disturbed context with no depositional integrity. Based on CEQA criteria, this is not a significant deposit. Any data potential was likely realized in the course of Phase 2 testing.

A14. Remarks: Site is slated to be a proposed public parking lot.

A15. References (Documents, informants, maps, and other references): Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Arroyo Grande (1886, 1890, 1891, 1895, 1903, 1909, 1931).

A16. Photographs: File 2057-1-dm; Exps 0143-0173. File 2113-1-dm; Exps 0198-0217 Original Media/Negatives Kept at: Applied Earth Works Inc., San Luis Obispo, CA

*A17. Form Prepared by: Damon Haydu, Marc Linder Date: 6/11/10, 10/7 /10 Affiliation and Address: Applied Earth Works, Inc., 743 Pacific Street, Suite A, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinornial Page 5 of 7 *Resource Name or#: AE-2057-1

*Recorded by: Da mon Haydu *Date: 6/J0/2010 !RI Continuation O Update

View of Residence 1 and Shed Facing Southeast.

View of Residence 2 Facing Northwest.

DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information ------State of Calforni a - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 2 of 5 *Resource Name or#: A E-2057-0 I *Scale: I :24.000 *Map Name: Arroyo Grande NL C;\ 1965 (P R 1993), Occano. CA 1965 (PR 1979) *Date: 2010

SCALE 1:2 4,000 0 TRUE NORTH

DPR 523J ( 1 /95) *Required information ------State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# SKETCH MAP Trinomial Page 1 of 1 *Resource Name or#: AE-2057-0 I *Drawn by: D. Haydu Scale: I" = 25 m *Date of map: 6/ l4/2010

e SP-1

Project Area ml Prehistoric Component D Parking Area

DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Appendix B. Native American Correspondence

SWCA Environmental Consultants Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

SWCA Environmental Consultants Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 Capitol Mall, RM 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 653-4082 (916) 657-5390 – Fax [email protected]

Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search August 31, 2012

Project: Bridge Street Bridge Project

County: San Luis Obispo

USGS Quadrangle(s) Name(s): Oceano

Township: 31 South; Range: 13 East; unsectioned land and part of the original Arroyo Grande land grant. The project area is on Bridge Street in Arroyo Grande.

UTMs: 720649mE/3889317mN

Company/Firm/Agency: SWCA Environmental Consultants

Contact Person: Leroy Laurie

Street Address: 1422 Monterey Street, C-200

City: San Luis Obispo Zip: 93401

Phone: 805.440.8712

Fax: 805.543.2367

Email: [email protected]

Project Description: The City of Arroyo Grande is currently reviewing environmental and cultural constraints for the rehabilitation or potential replacement of the existing Bridge Street Bridge in Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California.

10/02/2012 10:54 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC ~001/007

Ec,muna Q, Brown ,It.. gover.a.ac. STAJI! Of CWfOBNlA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL. ROON 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 85814 (91$) &5$-6251 Fall (9111) 857-6390 Web Site mrn.nahe,ca.g9v dll.t\[email protected]

October 2, 2012

Mr. Leroy Laurie, RPA SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street, Suite C-200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Sent by FAX to; 805-543-2367 No. of Pages: 5

Re: Sacred Lands Fite Search and Native Ame,iean Contacts hst for the proposed Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Contacts list for the proposed "Bridge Street Bridge Proiect" located In the City of Arroyo Grande; San Luis Obispo County, California

Dear Mr. Laurie:

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a Sacred Lands search based on the data provided and Native American cultural resource sit.es were not identified within one-half mile of the project site, the 'area of potential effect' (e.g. APE); you specified, .Also the absence of archaeological fixtures and other cultural resource items does not preclude their existence at the subsurface level. In addition. please note; the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory is not exhaustive and does not preclude the discovery of cultural resources during any project groundbreaking activity.

California Public Resources Code §§5097.94 (a) and 5097.96 authorize the NAHC to establish a Sacred Land Inventory to record Native American sacred sites and burial sites. These records are exempt from the provisions of the California Public Records Act pursuant to. California Govemment Code §6254 (r). The purpose of this code is to prated such sites from vandalism, theft and destruction.

In the 1985 Appellate Court decision (170 Cal App 3rd 604), the court held that the NAHC has jurisdiction and special expertise. as a state agency, over affected Native American resources. impacted by proposed projects including archaeological, places of religious significance to Native Americans and burial sites

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA - CA Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177, amendments effective 3118/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that lnciudes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, incf uding ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance. - In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project wlll have an adverse Impact on these resources within the ·area of potential ---=lc..;...0(!).2/2012 10: 55 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC llJ 002/007

effect (APE). and if so. to mitigate that effect. CA Government Code §65040.12(e) defines "environmental Justice" provisions arid is applicable to the environmental review processes. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (Archaeological Resources) that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources, construction to avoid sites and the possible use of covenant easements to protect sites.

Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. Local Native Americans may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties of the proposed project for the area (e.g. APE). Consultation with Native American communities Is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). We urge consultation with those tribes and interested Native Americans on the list that the NAHC has provided in order to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources. Lead agencies should consider avoidance as defined in §15370 of the CEQA Guidelines when significant cultural resources as defined by the CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(c)(f) may be affected by a proposed project. If so, Section 15362 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as ·substantial," and Section 2183.2 which requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources.

The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preseNation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, suppartive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards Include recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to Mresearch'' the cultural landscape that might include the 'area of potential effect.'

Partnering with local tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA (42 U.S.C 4321-43351) and Section 106 4(f), Section 110 and (k) of the federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (23 CFR 774): 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.C 4371 et seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Histortc Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The NAHC remains concerned about the !Imitations and methods employed for NHPA Section 106 Consultation.

Also, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, Califomla Government Code §27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for accidentally di$covered archeologicel resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemetery', another important reason to have Native American Monitors on board with the project.

To be effective. consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing

?. 10/02/2012 10:55 FAX 916 657 5390 NADC llJ 003/007

relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies.. project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. An excellent way to reinforce the relationship between a project and local tribes Is to employ Native American Monitors In all phases of proposed projects Including the planning phases.

Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance· may also be protected under Sect1on 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C .. 1996) in Issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose Items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APE and possibility threatened by proposed project activity.

y questions about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to 65 6251 .

1 __l,0}92/2012 10: 55 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC @004/007

Nattv, American Contacts San Luis Obispo County October 2, 2012

Beverly Salazar Folkes Judith Bomar Grindstaff 1931 Shadybrook Drive Chumash 63161 Argyle Road Salinan Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Tataviam King City , CA 93930 [email protected] Ferrnandeiio (831) 385-3759-horne 805 492-7255 (805) 558-1154 - cell

Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council Vincent Armenta, Chairperson Chief Mark Steven Vigil P.O. Box 517 Chumash 1030 Ritchie Road Chumash Santa Ynez , CA 93460 Grover Beach CA 93433 varmenta@santaynezohumash. (805) 481-2461 (805) 688-7997 (805) 474-4729 - Fax (805) 686-9578 Fax

BarbarenoNentureno Band of Mission Indians Julie Lynn Tumamait-Stennslie, Chairwoman Peggy Odom 365 North Poli Ave Chumash 1339 24th Street Chumash Ojai , CA 93023 Oceano 93445 [email protected] (805) 489-5390 (805) 646·6214

Sallnan Tribe of Monter&y, San Luis Obispo Counties Lei Lynn Odom John W. Burch, Traditional Chairperson 1339 24th Street Chumash 7070 Morro Rd, #A Salinan Oceano , CA 93445 Atascadero , CA 93422 Chumash (805) 489-5390 [email protected] 805-460·9202 805 235-2730 Cell 805-460·9204

This llst Is current only as of t1'le dat9 of this document.

Distribution of this list dOfftl not relkl'Ve any person of the statutory f96POl"l!lil>ility as dafined In SectJ«i 7050.5 of ttie Health and Safety Code, Sootion 5097.94 of tho Public Resources Code and Sact.ion 5097.98 of the Public Re&OUl'CIJS Code.

This II Gt fs applicablo for contacting loC.BI Native Afflllrlcans with regard to cultural rosoorcei. for the propogact TBridgo Street Bridge Project; locatod In the City of Arroyo Grande; Sim Luis Obispo County, CalifOmla for wtiich a S;,cmd Lands Fiie search and Na'live Amorlcan Contacts list wero reques~d. -----"-'lOc..:.../..::...0.?/2012 10: 55 FAX 916 657 5390 NAJIC ~005/007

Nativf American Contacts San Luis Obispo County October 2, 2012

Santa Ynez Tribal Elders Council Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation Association Adelina Alva-Padilla, Chair Woman Robert Duckworth, Environmental Coordinator P .0. Box 365 Chumash 4777 Driver Rd. Salinan Santa Ynez , CA 93460 Valley Springs CA 95252 [email protected] [email protected] (805) 688-8446 . 831-578-1852 (805) 693-1768 FAX

Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation Randy Guzman - Folkes Toni Cordero, Chairwoman 6471 Cornell Circle Chumash P.O. Box 4464 Chumash Moorpat1< , CA 93021 Fernandefio Santa Barbara CA 93140 [email protected] Tataviam [email protected] (805) 905·1675 - cell Shoshone Paiute 805·964-3447 Yaqui

Xolon Salinan Tribe Johnny R Eddy Jr Mona Olivas Tucker 3179 Garrity Way #734 Salinan 660 Camino Del Rey Chumash Richmond CA 94806 Arroyo Grande CA 93420 831-210-9771 (805) 489· 1052 Home (805) 748-2121 Cell

Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation Association Doug Alger, Cultural Resources Coordinator Matthew Darian Goldman PO Box 56 Salinan 495 Mentone Chumash Lockwood , CA 93932 Grover Beach CA 93433 [email protected] 805·7 48·6913

This llst Is current only as of the dato of this doCurn

Dilltributlon ot this list does not relieve any person of the sututory respo"glbility 89 defined iTI section 7050.5 Of tne HMllh and Safety Codo, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5091.98 of the Public Resoul"Cffll Code.

Thi& li$t Is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regatd to cultural resourc&s for the proposed . TBrldga Stroet. Brldg1> Projoot; located In the City of Arroyo Grande; San Luis Obispo County, C11lifornla for which a Sa~rod Winds Fiie search and Natlva American Contacts list were l'OQlllHlled. 10 / 02 /2012 10:55 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC ~006/007

Natlve American Contacts San Luis Obispo County October 2, 2012

Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians Tribal Administrator Frank Arredondo P.O. Box 517 Chumash PO Box 161 Chumash Santa Ynez , CA 93460 Santa Barbara CA 93102 info@santaynezchumash. [email protected] (805) 688-7997 805·617-6884 (805) 686-9578 Fax [email protected]

Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation Association Santa Ynez Tribal Elders Council Gregg Castro, Administrator Freddie Romero, Cultural Preservation Conslnt 5225 Roeder Road Salinan P.O. Box 365 Chumash San Jose , CA 95111 Santa Ynez , CA 93460 [email protected] freddyromero1959@yahoo. (408) 864-4115 805-688-7997, Ext 37

Salinan-Chumash Nation BarbarenoNentureno Band of Mission lndlans Xielolixii Kathleen Pappo 3901 a Street, Suite 31 B Salinan 2762 Vista Mesa Drive Chumash Bakersfield , CA 93301 Chumash Aanctio Palos Ve~ CA 90275 310-831-5295 408-966-8807 - cell

Nonhern Chumash Tribal COuncll BarbarenoNentureno Band of Mission Indians Fred Collins, Spokesperson Raudel Joe Banuelos, Jr. 67 South Street Chumash 331 Mira Flores Court Chumash San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Camarillo , CA 93012 fcollins@northernchumash. 805-987-5314 (805) 801 -0347 (Cell)

TI,is list Is current only as of the date of this document.

Distribution of thiS list doos not relieve any per.JOO oft~ gt.ahrtory respont.lblllty as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety CodO, Section 5()97.94 of the Publ!c R.esO\l~ Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list Is a.ppllcable for contacting loeal Native Americans with regard to cuHural resou~s for the propos11d TBridge Street Bridge ProJ~; located in the City of Arroyo Grande; San Lui& Obispo County, California for which u Sacred Lands File stu1reh and Native Anwrlcan Contact& llst wi:re reque&ted, 10/ 02 /2012 10:55 FAX 910 657 5390 NAIIC ~007/007

Native American Contacts San Luis Obispo County October 2, 2012

Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation Janet Darlene Garcia P.O. Box 4464 Chumash Santa Barbara CA 93140 805·689-9528

Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation Crystal Baker P.O. Box 4464 Chumash Santa Barbara CA 93140 805-689-9528

This list is cumnt only BS oft.tu, date of thi& d~ument.

Dhltribution of this IIGl does not 1111ieve any person of the statutory re&ponslblllty as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Hfflth aoo Safety Code, Section 6097 .94 of too Public Raources Code and Section 5097.98 of tna Public Resources Code.

Thi5 list i9 oppticable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultur-al rMources for the propo15ttd TBrldge StrMt B~e Project; locatod In ttie City of AITO)IO Grande; San Luis Obispo County, Callfomia tor wn1cn a Sacre<' LBnds Fiie search and Native Amoricen Contacts llst were requested. !

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`LFa!^NE=1E??:N!?E;!CEP:!1:OE1=2N3=!X:!O1:EB3;!E001:D2EB:=L! ! )U! ;>N! CEP:! E<;! ^N:KB2>! DE33! ?:! =21:DB3;! EB! Qb8FR! AA8[b`476! >1! :?E23! EB! 33EN12:cKYDELD>?L!!-CEN!U>1!;>N1!D>>0:1EB2>

!

.:1>;!.EN12:! $N3BN1E3!*:K>N1D:!"0:D2E32KB! ! !

"#$%!&'()*+',&'-%.!$+'"/.-%'-"! ! Northern Chumash Tribal Council A Native American Corporation - NorthernChumash.org 67 South Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805- 801- 0 347 •

Leroy Laurie May 9, 2013 Cultural Resource Specialist SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street Suite C200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-440-8712

Re: Bridge Street Bridge, Arroyo Grande CA

Leroy,

Thank you for the opportunity to meeting at the site in Arroyo Grande, and discussed the cultural aspects of the proposed Caltrans bridge project.

As we discussed the area along the creek and the adjacent foot hills were the living areas of my ancestors the Chumash Peoples, and as we discussed, over the years of building and re-building the current area of new bridge potential impact is in a moderate state of sensitivity. We know the Chumash were there, but we do not know what is left, maybe not much. NCTC is recommending that a sampling of several areas of impact with small borings or test pits to make sure what is under the surface.

Please keep NCTC informed of the developments for this project as it moves forward, thank you.

Sincerely,

Fred Collins Tribal Administrator NCTC

E NVIRONMENTAL & L AND- U SE C ONSULTING E DUCATIONAL S ERVICES TEACHING NATURE, NATIVE CULTURES & FARMING Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Table B-1. Coordination with Local Native American Groups

Date of Native American Contact Letter Sent Results/Comment Follow-up

Beverly Salazar Folkes April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. 1931 Shadybrook Drive 2013 Thousand Oaks, CA Vincent Armenta April 16, 2013 None See Mr. Romero’s Result Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 517 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 Gregg Castro April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation Officer 2013 5225 Roeder Road San Jose, CA 95111 Julie Lynn Tumamait-Stennslie, Chairwoman April 16, 2013 May, 15 2013 Ms. Tumamait-Stennslie Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission contacted SWCA by email on Indians May 15, 2013 and stated: “I don’t have knowledge of the 365 North Poli Avenue area, but since it is by water, I Ojai, CA 93023 would suspect that it would be sensitive to Cultural resources and be monitored.” Chief Mark Steven Vigil April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council 2013 1030 Ritchie Road Grover Beach, CA 93433 Freddie Romero April 16, 2013 None Mr. Romero contacted SWCA Santa Ynez Tribal Elders Council by telephone on April 17, 2013 and indicated that the Santa P.O. Box 365 Ynez Band of Mission Indians Santa Ynez, CA 93460 has no comment on the current project. Randy Guzman-Folkes April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. 6471 Cornell Circle 2013 Moorpark, CA 93021 Frank Arredondo April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. P.O. Box 161 2013 Santa Barbara, CA 93102 Judith Bomar Grindstaff April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. 63161 Argyle Road 2013 King City, CA 93930 Vincent Armenta, Chairperson April 16, 2013 None See Mr. Romero’s Result Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 517 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 Peggy Odom April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. 1339 24th Street 2013 Oceano, CA 93445 Lie Lynn Odom April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. 1339 24th Street 2013 Oceano, CA 93445

SWCA Environmental Consultants B-1 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Date of Native American Contact Letter Sent Results/Comment Follow-up

John W. Burch April 16, 2013 None Patti Dunton, on behalf of John Traditional Chairperson Burch, emailed SWCA on April 30,2012 and stated: “We are 7070 Morro Rd, #A not aware of any specific Atascadero, CA 93422 features or resources with the proposed project site. However because of the location next to a creek and occupation area both prehistoric and historic it would be a good idea to have monitoring during all ground disturbing activities for the project.” Adelina Alva-Padilla, Santa Ynez Tribal April 16, 2013 None See Mr. Romero’s Result Elders Council, Chairwoman P.O. Box 365 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 Robert Duckworth April 16, 2013 May 14, 2013 Mr. Duckworth suggested that Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation the construction crews are Association, Environmental Coordinator trained to recognize cultural resources and that a monitor 4777 Driver Rd. be present during initial Valley Springs, CA 95252 excavations. Johnny R Eddy Jr. April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. Xolon Salinan Tribe 2013 3179 Garrity Way #734 Richmond, CA 94806 Toni Cordero April 16, 2013 May 15, 2013 No comment, no longer Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, Chairwoman. Chairwoman P.O. Box 4464 Santa Barbara, CA 93140 Doug Alger April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. Salinan Nation Cultural Preservation 2013 Association, Cultural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 56 Lockwood, CA 93932 Mona Olivas Tucker April 16, 2013 May 14, 2013 Ms. Tucker indicated that she 650 Camino Del Rey was very familiar with the project area and that it should Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 be considered sensitive for cultural resources and that worker use the utmost caution during the project. Matthew Darian Goldman April 16, 2013 May 14, 2013 No comment 495 Mentone Grover Beach CA 93433 Fred Collins April 16, 2013 None Mr. Collins requested to meet Northern Chumash Tribal Council, at the project site. Please see Spokesperson April 9, 2013 letter from Mr. Collins below. 67 South Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

SWCA Environmental Consultants B-2 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Date of Native American Contact Letter Sent Results/Comment Follow-up

Tribal Administrator April 16, 2013 None See Mr. Romero’s Result Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 517 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 Xielollxii April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No Response Received. Salinan-Chumash Nation 2013 3901 Q Street, Suite 31B Bakersfield, CA 93301 Kathleen Pappo April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission 2013 Indians 2762 Vista Mesa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Raudel Joe Banuelos, Jr. April 16, 2013 May 14, 2013 Mr. Banuelos indicated that he Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission would submit his comments in Indians writing. No response received to date. 331 Mira Flores Court Camarillo, CA 93012 Janet Darlene Garcia April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation 2013 P.O. Box 4464 Santa Barbara, CA 93410 Crystal Baker April 16, 2013 May 14 and15, No response received. Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation 2013 P.O. Box 4464 Santa Barbara, CA 93410

SWCA Environmental Consultants B-3 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

This page intentionally left blank.

SWCA Environmental Consultants B-4 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Appendix C. Photographs

SWCA Environmental Consultants Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

SWCA Environmental Consultants Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

Photograph 1. View of northeastern portion of APE facing west.

Photograph 2. View of northeastern portion of APE facing north.

SWCA Environmental Consultants C-1 Bridge Street Bridge Project Archaeological Survey Report

This page intentionally left blank.

SWCA Environmental Consultants C-2