B08 IFB Atch 18 - SIP_USACE ARCF GRR HPMP Final_071317.pdf

Final American River Common Features Project General Reevaluation Report Historic Properties Management Plan

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

July 2017

Prepared by:

Consulting

Engineers and

Scientists

Final

American River Common Features Project General Reevaluation Report Historic Properties Management Plan

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922

Contact:

Name: Melissa Montag Title: Senior Environmental Manager Phone: 916-557-7907

Prepared by:

GEI Consultants, Inc.

2868 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95670

(916) 631-4500

Contact:

Barry Scott, RPA Senior Archaeologist

(916) 213.2767

July 17, 2017

Barry Scott, MA, RPA Senior Archaeologist

Project No. 1602400

American River Common Features Project GEI Consultants, Inc.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. v

Executive Summary and Content of Document

Chapter 1. Introduction and Description of the Undertaking ................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose and Application of the Historic Properties Management Plan .......................... 1-1

1.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................. 1-2

1.2 Description of the Undertaking ........................................................................................ 1-3

1.2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................. 1-3

1.2.2 Project Purpose and Need ................................................................................. 1-4

1.2.3 Area of Potential Effects ..................................................................................... 1-4

1.2.4 Description of the Undertaking ........................................................................... 1-4

1.3 Regulatory Context ........................................................................................................ 1-14

1.3.1 Federal ............................................................................................................. 1-14

1.3.2 State ................................................................................................................. 1-18

1.4 Permits and Rights-of-Entry .......................................................................................... 1-21

1.4.1 Rights-of-Entry .................................................................................................. 1-21

1.4.2 Permits.............................................................................................................. 1-21

Chapter 2. General Standards and Procedures ......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Professional Qualifications .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Archaeology ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.2 History................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.3 Architectural History ........................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Documentation Standards ............................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Area of Potential Effects Maps ........................................................................... 2-2

2.2.2 Inventory and Evaluation Reports ...................................................................... 2-2

2.2.3 Findings of Effect ................................................................................................ 2-3

2.2.4 Historic Property Treatment Plans ..................................................................... 2-3

2.2.5 Monitoring and Discovery Plans ......................................................................... 2-3

2.2.6 Training Materials ............................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.7 Post-Construction Reports ................................................................................. 2-4

2.2.8 Treatment Reports .............................................................................................. 2-4

2.2.9 Other Reports ..................................................................................................... 2-4

2.3 Dissemination and Confidentiality of Information ............................................................ 2-4

2.4 Curation ........................................................................................................................... 2-5

Chapter 3. Context ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Cultural Context ............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Sacramento Valley ............................................ 3-1

3.1.2 Prehistory of the Sacramento Valley .................................................................. 3-6

3.1.3 Ethnographic Overview .................................................................................... 3-15

3.1.4 Historic Context ................................................................................................ 3-27

3.2 Environmental Context .................................................................................................. 3-45

3.2.1 Regional Surface Geology and Geomorphology .............................................. 3-45

3.2.2 Climate.............................................................................................................. 3-52

3.2.3 Flora and Fauna ............................................................................................... 3-53

Chapter 4. Cultural Resources Identification Methods ............................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Records and Literature Search ....................................................................................... 4-1

GEI Consultants, Inc. American River Common Features Project Table of Contents ii U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

4.2 Area of Potential Effects Map Delineation ....................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Surveys and Documentation ........................................................................................... 4-3

4.4 Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment Procedures ....................................................... 4-5

4.4.1 Purpose of the Sensitivity Assessment .............................................................. 4-5

4.4.2 Methods .............................................................................................................. 4-6

4.4.3 Procedures ......................................................................................................... 4-8

4.4.4 Use of Sensitivity Assessment ........................................................................... 4-8

4.5 Identification of Traditional Cultural Properties and Cultural Landscapes ...................... 4-8

4.6 Special Process for Geotechnical Investigations .......................................................... 4-10

4.7 Built-Environment Resources ........................................................................................ 4-11

4.7.1 Resource Types ............................................................................................... 4-11

4.7.2 Resource Recordation ...................................................................................... 4-13

Chapter 5. Consultation with Knowledgeable Individuals, Groups and Native American Consultation Procedures ........................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Consultation with Knowledgeable Individuals and Groups ............................................. 5-1

5.2 Native American Consultation ......................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 5-2

5.2.2 Procedures ......................................................................................................... 5-3

5.2.3 Native American Burials ..................................................................................... 5-5

Chapter 6. Identification of Historic Properties ......................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Defining Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 6-1

6.1.1 Prehistoric Resource Types ............................................................................... 6-2

6.1.2 Historic Archaeological Sites .............................................................................. 6-5

6.1.3 Traditional Cultural Properties, Sacred Sites, Landscapes, and

Archaeological Districts ...................................................................................... 6-6

6.1.4 Properties Exempt from Evaluation .................................................................. 6-10

6.2 Contexts for Potential Significance ................................................................................ 6-11

6.2.1 Native American Research Themes ................................................................. 6-11

6.2.2 19th Century Native American Lifeways in the Sacramento Area ................... 6-15

6.2.3 Contemporary Native American Issues ............................................................ 6-16

6.2.4 Historic Period Research Themes .................................................................... 6-17

6.3 Application of Criteria for Evaluation ............................................................................. 6-18

6.3.1 Prehistoric Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 6-18

6.3.2 Historic Period Cultural Resources .................................................................. 6-20

6.3.3 Contemporary Native American Resources, Sacred Sites, Traditional Cultural

Properties, and Cultural Landscapes ............................................................... 6-23

6.3.4 Consideration of Archaeological Sites Contained Within Levees .................... 6-23

6.4 Linking Cultural Resources to Research Themes ......................................................... 6-24

6.5 Issues of Integrity .......................................................................................................... 6-24

6.6 Historical/Built-Environment Resources ........................................................................ 6-25

6.6.1 Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 6-25

6.6.2 Application of Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................ 6-27

6.7 Application of Research Designs .................................................................................. 6-30

6.8 Consultation ................................................................................................................... 6-31

Chapter 7. Assessment of Effects ............................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Criteria of Adverse Effect ................................................................................................. 7-1

7.3 Application of Criteria of Affect to Historic Property Types ............................................. 7-2

7.3.1 Archaeological Sites ........................................................................................... 7-3

7.3.2 Built-Environment ............................................................................................... 7-4

7.4 Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 7-6

7.5 Documentation of Findings of Effect ............................................................................... 7-7

7.5.1 Finding of No Historic Properties Affected ......................................................... 7-7

7.5.2 Finding of Historic Properties Affected ............................................................... 7-8

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers iii Table of Contents

Chapter 8. Resolution of Adverse Effects .................................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Avoidance ........................................................................................................................ 8-1

8.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1.2 Avoidance Options – Archaeological Sites, Traditional Cultural Properties, and Cultural Landscapes .................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 Development of Historic Properties Treatment Plans ..................................................... 8-4

8.2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 8-4

8.2.2 Procedures ......................................................................................................... 8-5

8.2.3 Content ............................................................................................................... 8-5

8.2.4 Consultation and Review .................................................................................... 8-6

8.2.5 Use of the Historic Properties Management Plan in Development of Historic

Properties Treatment Plans ................................................................................ 8-7

8.3 Treatment of Archaeological Resources ......................................................................... 8-7

8.3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 8-7

8.3.2 Treatment Options .............................................................................................. 8-8

8.3.3 Treatment of Archaeological Sites that Contain Human Remains, Funerary

Objects, Sacred Objects, and Objects of Cultural Patrimony........................... 8-10

8.4 Treatment for Built-Environment Resources ................................................................. 8-11

8.4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 8-11

8.4.2 Treatment Options ............................................................................................ 8-11

Chapter 9. Construction Period Processes ................................................................................................ 9-1

9.1 Cultural Resources Awareness Training ......................................................................... 9-1

9.2 Discovery Plan ................................................................................................................. 9-1

9.3 Inadvertent Discoveries ................................................................................................... 9-2

9.3.1 Stop Work ........................................................................................................... 9-2

9.3.2 Assess Find ........................................................................................................ 9-2

9.3.3 Notifications ........................................................................................................ 9-3

9.3.4 Documentation and Consultation ....................................................................... 9-3

9.3.5 Implement Treatment of Potential Historic Properties ........................................ 9-4

9.3.6 Resumption of Work ........................................................................................... 9-4

9.3.7 Discovery of Human Remains ............................................................................ 9-4

9.3.8 Provisions for Discovery of Human Remains under this Historic Properties

Management Plan .............................................................................................. 9-6

9.3.9 Archaeological Monitoring and Training ............................................................. 9-7

9.3.10 Native American Monitoring ............................................................................... 9-8

9.4 Post-Construction Documentation .................................................................................... 9-8

Chapter 10. References ................................................................................................................................ 10-1

Table of Contents iv U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Appendices Appendix A. List of Preparers Appendix B. Table of Tasks to be Completed for Each American River Common Features General

Reevaluation Report Project Phase Appendix C. Template for Inventory and Evaluation Reports Appendix D. Template for Finding of Effect Appendix E. Template for Historic Property Treatment Plans Appendix F. Template for Monitoring and Discovery Plans Appendix G. Template for Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Program Appendix H. Template for Post-Construction Reports Appendix I. Template for Treatment Reports Appendix J. Template for Geoarchaeological Field Investigation Plans Appendix K. Template for Geoarchaeological Field Investigation Reports Appendix L. Template for Archaeological Field Investigation Plans Appendix M. Template for Historic Structures Reports Appendix N. Post-Construction Conditions Assessment Reports Appendix O. Template for Contractor Discovery Plans Appendix P. Levee Unit Location Maps

Tables Table 3-1. Summary of Surface Geologic Units in the Study Area ............................................................. 3-47 Table 3-2. Summary of Soil Mapping Units in the Study Area .................................................................... 3-48 Table 3-3. Summary of Extent and Archaeological Sensitivity of Geologic Mapping Units ........................ 3-51 Table 3-4. Summary of Extent and Archaeological Sensitivity of Soil Mapping Units ................................. 3-51 Table 6-1. Suggested Archival Materials to be consulted ........................................................................... 6-26 Table 6-2. Recommended Aspects of Integrity ........................................................................................... 6-30

Figures Figure 1-1. American River Common Features General Reevaluation Report Project Study Area ............... 1-5 Figure 1-2. American River Common Features General Reevaluation Report Project Area of Potential

Effects ........................................................................................................................................... 1-6

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronyms and Abbreviations ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation A.D. After Death ADI area of direct impact AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act APE Area of Potential Effects ARCF GRR Project American River Common Features General Reevaluation Project ARFCD American River Flood Control District ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act B.C. Before Christ B.P. Before Present CCR California Code of Regulations CCTS Central California Taxonomic System CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CPRR Central Pacific Railroad CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CVFPB Central Valley Flood Protection Board CVP Central Valley Project CWA Clean Water Act cy cubic yards DEIS/DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental

Impact Report Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation DSM deep soil mixing DWR California Department of Water Resources EC Engineer Circular EO Executive Order ESA Federal Endangered Species Act °F degrees Fahrenheit FOE Findings of Effect GEI GEI Consultants, Inc.

HABS Historic American Buildings Survey HAER Historic American Engineering Record

Acronyms and Abbreviations vi U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

HALS Historic American Landscape Survey HPMP Historic Properties Management Plan HPTP Historic Properties Treatment Plan HSR Historic Structures Report MCA Medieval Climatic Anomaly MLD Most Likely Descendant NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCC Natomas Cross Canal NCIC North Central Information Center NEIC Northeast Information Center NEMDC Natomas East Main Drainage Canal NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NPS National Park Service NPS-28 Cultural Resource Management NRB National Register Bulletin NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWIC Northwest Information Center O&M operations and maintenance PA Programmatic Agreement PCI Panamerican Consultants, Inc.

PGCC Pleasant Grove Creek Canal PL Public Law POC Point of Contact PRC California Public Resources Code RD Reclamation District RIDA River Improvement and Drainage Association SAFCA Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency SHPO California State Historic Preservation Officer SRBPP Sacramento River Bank Protection Project SRFCP Sacramento River Flood Control Project SWIF System-Wide Improvement Framework TCP Traditional Cultural Property UPRR Union Pacific Railroad Company USC United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WPRR Western Pacific Railroad

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ES-1 Executive Summary and Content of Document

Executive Summary and Content of Document

This Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) was prepared for the American River Common Features General Reevaluation Project (ARCF GRR Project), in accordance with requirements stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Sacramento District and the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The PA was executed on September 10, 2015, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800, as amended in 1999).

Stipulation III of the PA requires that the Corps develop a HPMP in consultation with the SHPO, Concurring Parties, and Native American Interested Parties and Tribes.

Because the ARCF GRR Project will be implemented in multiple phases over a number of years and over a large geographic area, it is infeasible, in a single effort, to identify all of the cultural resources in the entirety of the project Area of Potential Effects (APE), to determine the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility status of all cultural resources in the APE (i.e., identify Historic Properties), to determine the project effects on each Historic Property, or to determine how adverse effects will be resolved. The PA was executed to allow these processes to occur as each phase of the overall ARCF GRR Project is authorized and funded for design and construction. The PA stipulates that the HPMP will provide the framework by which remaining efforts to identify, evaluate eligibility, determine effect, and identify resolution of adverse effects to Historic Properties will occur. The actual treatment of Historic Properties that would be adversely affected will be identified in separate Historic Properties Treatment Plans (HPTPs) prepared for individual or multiple Historic Property types.

The ARCF GRR Project is located in the City and County of Sacramento, the County of Sutter, and the County of Yolo, California. Sacramento is the State Capitol of California, located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers in the northern portion of California’s Central Valley. The Sacramento metropolitan area, is the fourth largest in California, and includes six counties and seven incorporated cities. The ARCF GRR Project area includes: (1) approximately 12 miles of the north and south banks of the American River, immediately upstream from the confluence with the Sacramento River; (2) Arcade Creek, the Magpie Creek Diversion Channel, and the east bank of the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) (collectively referred to as the East Side Tributaries); (3) the east bank of the Sacramento River, downstream from the American River to the Town of Freeport, where the levee ties into Beach Lake Levee; (4) the Sacramento Weir and Bypass, north of the City of West Sacramento; and (5) the levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, including the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) South Levee, the Sacramento River East Levee between the NCC and the confluence of the American River, the NEMDC East Levee, and the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) West Levee.

This HPMP describes the regulatory context of the ARCF GRR Project (Chapter 1) and permitting requirements associated with many of the prescribed investigations (Chapter 2) and provides specific guidance and requirements for identification of the APE for each ARCF GRR Project phase. General standards for documents, professional qualifications, confidentiality, and dissemination of information are also provided, as well as a plan for curation of any collected cultural materials (Chapter 2).

Executive Summary and Content of Document ES-2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The detailed cultural and environmental context provided in Chapter 3 is intended to be used for evaluating NRHP eligibility of cultural resources that are identified in the ARCF GRR Project phase APEs and determining effects to Historic Properties. It also may be useful in selecting appropriate treatment measures for Historic Properties that would be adversely affected. Detailed guidance and requirements for records and literature searches, survey and documentation, archaeological sensitivity assessment, and correspondence with knowledgeable individuals, as well as in-depth guidance concerning Native American consultation, also is provided (Chapter 4).

To streamline future NRHP evaluation documents, Chapter 5 of this HPMP describes specific procedures for identification of Historic Properties (i.e., evaluation of cultural resources). These procedures include lists of likely and known property types, research designs, and guidance for applying evaluation criteria, including specific attributes for each major property type that would or would not qualify a property as a Historic Property. Research designs may also be useful in selecting appropriate treatment measures for future HPTPs to address damage to qualities of Historic Properties that contribute to those properties’ significance; although, there is no requirement that treatment be specifically tied to eligibility criteria.

Chapter 6 discusses the guidelines for Native American consultation. Specific guidance and requirements for determining if Historic Properties would be adversely affected are provided in Chapter 7, including consultation and documentation requirements. This section includes a discussion of specific challenges encountered in some flood-risk damage reduction projects involving existing levees and provides guidance on how to address these challenges. Section 7 also addresses assessment of effects to Historic Properties and provides specific guidance on applying criteria of adverse effect to expected Historic Property types.

Chapter 8 addresses resolution of adverse effects to Historic Properties and provides detailed guidance on methods of avoidance and describes several treatment options. This section also streamlines the development of future HPTPs by describing required procedures and content of HPTPs. Because contentious issues concerning treatment of archaeological sites that contain human remains have arisen on flood-risk damage reduction projects in recent years, this section also discusses the approach to treatment in such situations, using guidance from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

Chapter 9 provides procedures and guidance for construction-period processes, including cultural resources awareness training, construction contractor’s Discovery Plan, unanticipated discovery during construction, monitoring, and discovery of human remains. Although the ARCF GRR Project is not subject to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), because there is no Federal land in the APE, this HPMP describes requirements under California State law and regulations in the event human remains are discovered. Appropriate procedures for such a discovery are described, as they relate to the wider construction area and actions and behaviors of construction personnel.

This HPMP has been prepared with several special considerations in mind: levees, alluvial deposition, and other built-environment features have obscured some cultural resources; a full assessment of archaeological sites cannot be made in advance of construction; there is a high probability for buried cultural resources in some areas of the APE, including within some existing levees, and these buried resources may not be identified prior to construction; and it may be logistically difficult or impossible to fully avoid some Historic Properties that are contained within existing levees. Special consideration also has been afforded to the objection of some interested Native Americans to using data recovery excavation in certain circumstances and the view of some interested Native Americans that entire archaeological sites are sacred burial grounds if Native American human remains, burial objects, or burial materials are found in any part of the site.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1-1 Introduction and Description of the Undertaking

Chapter 1. Introduction and Description of the Undertaking

This HPMP was prepared for the ARCF GRR Project by GEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI) (Appendix A, List of Preparers), under contract to the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), on behalf of the Corps, Sacramento District. SAFCA is a non-Federal Sponsor of the ARCF GRR Project. It was prepared in accordance with requirements stipulated in the PA between the Corps and the SHPO, which was executed on September 10, 2015, in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800, as amended in 1999). Stipulation III of the PA requires that the Corps develop an HPMP in consultation with the SHPO, Concurring Parties, and Native American Interested Parties and Tribes.

Because the ARCF GRR Project will be implemented in multiple phases over a number of years and in a large geographic area, it is infeasible, in a single effort, to identify all of the cultural resources in the entirety of the ARCF GRR Project APE, to determine NRHP eligibility status of all cultural resources in the APE (i.e., identify Historic Properties), to determine ARCF GRR Project effects on each Historic Property, or to determine how adverse effects will be resolved. The PA was executed to allow these processes to occur as each phase of the overall ARCF GRR Project is authorized and funded for design and construction. The PA stipulates that the HPMP will provide the framework by which remaining efforts to identify, evaluate eligibility, determine effect, and identify resolution of adverse effects to Historic Properties will occur. The actual treatment of Historic Properties that would be adversely affected will be identified in separate HPTPs prepared for individual or multiple Historic Properties or Historic Property types.

1.1 Purpose and Application of the Historic Properties

Management Plan

In accordance with PA Stipulation III, the Corps, in consultation with Signatory and Concurring Parties and Native American Interested Parties and Tribes, has prepared this HPMP to provide the framework or “road map” by which subsequent identification efforts, eligibility evaluation, findings of effect, and resolution of adverse effects to Historic Properties will occur. For the overall ARCF GRR Project, and individual phases, the HPMP shall be the means for the Corps to comply with 36 CFR § 800.6 and provide standardized methods for dealing with unanticipated discoveries in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.13(a). Appendix B summarizes tasks to be completed for each ARCF GRR Project phase, identifies the corresponding PA commitment where applicable, and provides the anticipated schedule for each ARCF GRR Project phase.

Beyond providing a framework or road map, this HPMP provides specific guidance and requirements for conducting research, sensitivity analyses, cultural resources inventories, and Native American consultation. To streamline future efforts to evaluate resources for NRHP eligibility, this HPMP also provides detailed contexts and research designs to be applied to the various resource types after they are identified. This approach is anticipated to significantly reduce the time that will be needed to prepare HPTPs before and during project construction.

Introduction and Description of the Undertaking 1-2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Similarly, this HPMP specifically identifies activities and project attributes that would and would not constitute an adverse effect to the various types or categories of Historic Properties. Advance agreement among the Signatory and Concurring Parties and Native American Interested Parties and Tribes concerning this aspect is anticipated to significantly streamline the assessment of effects process.

This HPMP has been prepared with several special considerations in mind: levees, alluvial deposition, and other built-environment features have obscured some cultural resources; a full assessment of archaeological sites cannot be made in advance of construction; there is a high probability for buried cultural resources in some areas of the APE and these buried resources may not be identified prior to construction; and it may be logistically difficult or impossible to fully avoid some archaeological sites that are contained within existing levees. To address this issue, the HPMP identifies specific procedures for inadvertent discoveries made during construction.

This HPMP also has been prepared in recognition of the high-level of concern that interested Native Americans have concerning treatment and disposition of archaeological deposits, Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) and sacred locations, cultural landscapes, and Native American burials and associated items and materials. Therefore, this HPMP includes requirements for considering a range of treatment options for these types of Historic Properties and includes provisions for inadvertent discoveries during construction, with special consideration for Native American views of appropriate treatment and disposition.

There is no Federally-owned property within the APE; therefore, NAGPRA would not apply. However, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) and individual landowners must ensure that Native American human remains and grave goods encountered during the Undertaking on State of California (State) or private land are treated in accordance with requirements in California State Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) and California Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097.98. If Native American human remains are found within the context of a NRHP-eligible archaeological site, methods of treatment and disposition of the human remains and associated items and materials must be identified, consistent with California State Health and Safety Code, and the archaeological site must be treated in accordance with the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR § 800.6). This HPMP identifies treatment options that that would be consistent with both requirements of both regulations.

When the Corps determines that an ARCF GRR Project activity would result in adverse effects to an Historic Property, an HPTP specific to the Project phase or the Historic Property will be prepared to identify how adverse effects would be resolved. Each HPTP will be consistent with and appended to this HPMP. As appropriate, HPTPs will incorporate by reference historic contexts, research designs, methods, and procedures described in this HPMP.

1.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities

Signatories to the PA for the ARCF GRR Project are the Corps and the SHPO. Concurring parties invited to sign the PA include: CVFPB, the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California, the Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, the Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe, the Cortina Wintun Environmental Protection Agency, the El Dorado Miwok Tribe, Rose Enos, Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California, Fair Oaks Historical Society, Kesner Flores, Golden Gate State Museum, Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California, Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians, Nashville-El Dorado Miwok, Sacramento County Historical Society, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Society for California Archaeology, Strawberry Valley Rancheria, Sutter County Historical

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1-3 Introduction and Description of the Undertaking

Society, T’Si-Akim Maidu, United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, West Sacramento Historical Society, Wilton Rancheria, Yolo County Historical Society, and Randy Yonemura. Only the West Sacramento Historical Society signed the PA as a concurring party. The ACHP was invited but declined to participate in the PA development.

Programmatic Agreement – Signatory Parties The Corps, as the sole Federal signatory party to the PA, has overall responsibility for implementation of the PA stipulations and, as lead Federal agency for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, has overall responsibility for complying with Section 106 of the NHPA and ensuring appropriate implementation of the procedures and requirements of this HPMP. The SHPO has overall responsibility to review each document that is produced in accordance with the PA and to consult with the Corps, as it deems appropriate, to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Both Signatory Parties have authority to execute, amend, or terminate the PA.

Programmatic Agreement – Concurring Parties Concurring parties do not have authority to execute, amend, or terminate the PA. As concurring parties, they have indicated special interest in the ARCF GRR Project and willingness and interest in on-going involvement. All concurring parties shall be provided, for review and comment, all documents prepared under this HPMP, in accordance with Stipulation I of the PA.

Programmatic Agreement – Other Parties Other parties, such as interested Native Americans, historical societies, or other interested organizations and individuals that are not currently concurring parties, may participate in consultation to identify Historic Properties, evaluate effects to Historic Properties, and determine treatment for adversely affected Historic Properties and may request to become concurring parties.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Although the ACHP declined to participate in consultation for the ARCF GRR Project, or in the development of the PA, the ACHP will be requested to advise or provide recommendations in the event of a dispute by a signatory party concerning any action proposed or carried out under the PA (PA Stipulation XV).

1.2 Description of the Undertaking

1.2.1 Project Location

The project is located in the City and County of Sacramento, County of Sutter and County of Yolo, California. Sacramento is the State Capitol, located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers in the northern portion of California’s Central Valley. The fourth largest metropolitan area in California, the Sacramento metropolitan area includes six counties (Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba) and seven incorporated cities (Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, Elk Grove, Roseville, Citrus Heights, Rocklin, and Folsom). The ARCF GRR Project study area includes the lower portion of the Sacramento and American River watersheds. The Sacramento River Watershed covers approximately 27,000 square miles in northern California. Major tributaries of the Sacramento River include the Feather, Yuba, and American Rivers. The American River Watershed includes approximately 2,100 square miles northeast of the City of Sacramento, in portions of Placer, El Dorado, Introduction and Description of the Undertaking 1-4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Alpine, and Sacramento Counties. It includes Folsom Dam and Reservoir; inflowing rivers and streams, including the North, South, and Middle forks of the American River; and the American River downstream to its confluence with the Sacramento River. The Sacramento and American Rivers form a floodplain covering approximately 110,000 acres at their confluence. This floodplain includes most of the developed portions of the City of Sacramento.

1.2.2 Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the ARCF GRR Project is to reduce the overall flood risk within the study area (Figure 1-1). An unacceptably high risk of flooding from levee failure threatens the public safety of approximately 530,000 people, as well as property and critical infrastructure throughout the study area.

Additionally, the State Capitol is located in the study area, and many State agencies have headquarters in the study area. Historic flooding events have caused loss of life and extensive economic damage, and approximately 83,000 structures throughout the study area are at risk of flooding in a 100-year event (1 percent annual chance of flooding).

The Sacramento metropolitan area is one of the most at-risk areas for flooding in the United States.

There is a high probability that flows in either the American or Sacramento River will stress the levee network that protects the study area to the point that levees could fail. The consequences of such a levee failure would be catastrophic, because the area that would be inundated is highly urbanized, and the inundation could be up to 20 feet deep in certain areas.

The Sacramento metropolitan area has a high probability of flooding because of its location at the confluence and within the floodplain of two major rivers. Both of these rivers have large watersheds with very high potential runoff that has overwhelmed the existing flood management system in the past.

The existing levee system was designed and built many years ago, before modern construction methods were employed. These levees were constructed close to the river to increase velocities and flush out hydraulic mining debris. This debris is essentially gone now and the high velocities associated with flood flows are eroding the levees, which are critical components of the flood management system necessary to reduce flood risk in the study area.

1.2.3 Area of Potential Effects

The APE is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of Historic Properties. The overall APE for the ARCF GRR Project is depicted on Figure 1-2 and is described in PA Stipulation II. Because the ARCF GRR Project would occur in phases, a further defined APE would be prepared for each phase as the specific design elements of those phases are identified. The process for updating this established APE map is outlined in PA Stipulation II and Section 4.2 of this HPMP.

1.2.4 Description of the Undertaking

While the overall ARCF GRR Project study area covers a broad geographic area, the construction and operation components that encompass the ARCF GRR Project APE (Figure 1-2) are limited to areas where there would be potential direct or indirect effects to the character or use of Historic Properties.

These areas include: approximately 12 miles of the north and south banks of the American River, immediately upstream from the confluence with the Sacramento River; intermittent sites along the east bank of the Sacramento River, between the NCC and the American River; intermittent sites on the south

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1-5 Introduction and Description of the Undertaking

Figure 1-1. American River Common Features General Reevaluation Report Project Study Area

Source: American River Common Features Programmatic Agreement 2015

Introduction and Description of the Undertaking 1-6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Figure 1-2. American River Common Features General Reevaluation Report Project Area of Potential Effects

Source: American River Common Features Programmatic Agreement 2015

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1-7 Introduction and Description of the Undertaking bank of the NCC, immediately upstream of the confluence with the Sacramento River; the Sacramento Bypass and Sacramento Weir; approximately 4 miles of the PGCC; approximately 8 miles of the NEMDC; approximately 15 miles of the east bank of the Sacramento River between the American River and Morrison Creek; approximately 0.5 mile of the south bank of Dry and Robla Creeks; approximately 2 miles of Arcade Creek; and approximately 0.5 mile of the Magpie Creek Diversion Channel. The following sections contain more detailed information on the specific features and reaches included in the ARCF GRR Project.

Sacramento Weir and Bypass The Sacramento Weir and Bypass currently allow excess flood waters to spill out of the Sacramento River and into the Yolo Bypass, thereby reducing the flood load on the downstream levee system. The ARCF GRR Project leverages this existing structure by extending the current weir structure an estimated 1,500 feet north and relocating the Sacramento Bypass North Levee. The widened weir, combined with the increased Sacramento Bypass width and operational change, will allow more water to be released and eliminate the need for many levee height improvements along the Sacramento River. However, this component does not reduce the need for seepage, stability, and erosion improvements within reaches of the Sacramento River.

The Sacramento Weir and Bypass were constructed in 1916. They are owned by the State and operated by California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The primary purpose of the Sacramento Weir is to protect the City of Sacramento from excessive flood stages in the Sacramento River channel downstream of the American River. The Weir limits flood stages (water surface elevations) in the Sacramento River to project design levels through the Sacramento/West Sacramento area. The ARCF GRR Project design capacity of the Sacramento Bypass is approximately 112,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). Currently, operation of the Sacramento Weir in a flood event is determined by the stage at the I Street Bridge gage. When the I Street Bridge gage reaches 27.5 feet, the gates of the Sacramento Weir are manually opened. The number of gates opened is determined based on one of two criteria: (1) to prevent the stage at the I Street Bridge gage from exceeding 29 feet, or (2) to hold the stage at the downstream end of the Sacramento Weir to 27.5 feet.

The existing north levee of the Sacramento Bypass would be degraded and a new levee constructed approximately 1,500 feet to the north. A new weir would be constructed between the existing Sacramento Weir and the new levee, without impacting the existing structure. A seepage cutoff wall would be constructed below the new weir. In the Sacramento Bypass, the existing grade slopes towards the south levee toe drain. Sloping and grading of the Sacramento Bypass expansion area would be determined in the preconstruction engineering and design phase, with considerations for fish passage and elimination of stranding features.

The new north levee of the Sacramento Bypass would be constructed in compliance with the new levee construction standards, including 3H:1V waterside and landside slopes and a minimum crown width of 20 feet. As both the existing north and south levees have experienced under seepage- and slope stability-related distress, the new north levee would include a 300-foot-wide drained landside seepage berm (5 feet thick at the landside levee toe, tapering to 3 feet thick at the berm toe and constructed of random fill with a 1.5-foot-thick drainage and filter layer at the base). A system of relief wells would be installed at least 15 feet landward of the berm toe and spaced at 200-foot intervals. Existing infrastructure, including roads, railways, canals, and pump stations would be relocated to maintain current operation.

Introduction and Description of the Undertaking 1-8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Sacramento River Levees along the Sacramento River require improvements to address seepage, slope stability, and erosion. In addition, these levees would be raised to address overtopping concerns. Private property acquisition would be required along the approximately 7 miles of levee that would be raised. Where levee raise is required, a 10-foot-wide landside construction easement would be cleared to allow for equipment movement and fill placement on the levee crown and slope.