NorthCoastEIR 0130 Mar - California

Marine Life Protection Act - North Coast Study Region Draft Environmental Impact Report

5-1

March 2012Project No. 11.002

Chapter 5

CULTURAL RESOURCES

5.1 Introduction ThischapterreviewstheexistingconditionsrelatedtoculturalresourcesinandadjacenttotheNorthCoastStudyRegion(StudyRegion)andpresentstheProposedProject’spotentialeffectsonhistoric,archaeological,andpaleontologicalsites;TraditionalCulturalProperties(TCPs); and traditional and current tribal practices. It also describes federal, tribal, state,andlocalregulationsrelatedtoculturalresourcesthatwouldapplytotheProposedProject.

Aculturalresourceisdefinedasalocationofhumanactivity,occupation,oruseidentifiedthrough field survey, historical documentation or research, or information from NativeAmerican tribal representatives (BLM2004).Cultural resources in the studyareaare theremains and sites associatedwithpast humanactivities and include shellmounds, burialgrounds, historic village sites, Paleolithic art and petroglyphs, remnants of originalstructures, ceremonial artifacts and sites, tool‐making sites, fossil remains, and otherprehistoricartifacts.Thetermincludesarchaeologicalsitesaswellashistoricbuildingsandstructuresmorethan50yearsofage thatmaybe important inhistoryorhave importantscientificuse.CulturalresourcesalsoincludeTCPs,whicharesitesorlocationsembodyingthebeliefs, customs,andpracticesofa livingcommunityofpeople thathavebeenpasseddownthroughgenerations,usuallyorallyorthroughpractice(ParkerandKing1998).

Themajorityofthischapterhasbeenderivedfromthefollowingsources:

Regional Profile of theNorth Coast Study Region: California/Oregon Border toAlderCreek(RegionalProfile;MLPAI2010a)

“CaliforniaTribesandTribalCommunities,”AppendixEof theRegionalProfile(MLPAI2010b).ThissourceisacompendiumofdocumentsassubmittedtotheCaliforniaMarineLifeProtectionAct Initiative(MLPAI)by20tribes(including10 individual tribal profile submittals and a submittal representing 10 tribesprovidedbytheIntertribalSinkyoneWildernessCouncil)

“Cultural Resources Analysis Memorandum: North Coast Study Region”(AppendixE)

“Supplemental Information Provided by the Yurok Tribe of the YurokReservation”(AppendixF)

ListofIndianEntitiesRecognizedandEligibletoReceiveServicesfromtheUnitedStatesBureauofIndianAffairs(annualpublicationfromtheFederalRegister)

The focus of CEQA analysis is on the potential for physical changes to the environment.Economic or social impacts that do not directly or indirectly result in adverse physicalimpacts on the environment are not subject to analysis under CEQA (California

California Department of Fish and Game 5. Cultural Resources


5-2


Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 15131). CEQA includes guidance for analyses of aproject’s impact on physical archaeological and historical resources (see section 5.2.2,“StateLaws,Regulations,andPolicies,”below).EconomicorsocialeffectsoftheProposedProject have been included in Appendix B of this document, to help the CommissiondeterminethesignificanceofphysicalchangescausedbytheProposedProject.

5.2 Regulatory Setting

5.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies

Federally Recognized Tribes (25 CFR Part 83)

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, of the U.S. Department of the Interior implements Code ofFederalRegulations(CFR)Title25,Part83(25CFRPart83),which identifiesproceduresforestablishingfederalrecognitionofNativeAmericanGrouptribes(U.S.DepartmentoftheInteriorIndianAffairs2011).Themandatorycriteriaare:

the petitioner has been identified as an American Indian entity on asubstantiallycontinuousbasissince1900;

apredominantportionofthepetitioninggroupcomprisesadistinctcommunityandhasexistedasacommunityfromhistoricaltimesuntilthepresent;

thepetitionerhasmaintainedpolitical influenceorauthorityoveritsmembersasanautonomousentityfromhistoricaltimesuntilthepresent;

a copy of the group’s present governing document including its membershipcriteria. In the absence of a written document, the petitionermust provide astatement describing in full its membership criteria and current governingprocedures;

the petitioner’s membership consists of individuals who descend from ahistorical Indian tribe or from historian Indian tribes which combined andfunctionedasasingleautonomouspoliticalentity;

the membership of the petitioning group is composed principally of personswhoarenotmembersofanyacknowledgedNorthAmericanIndiantribe;and

neitherthepetitionernoritsmembersarethesubjectofcongress.

Forpurposesofthisdocument,andconsistentwiththeBureauofIndianAffairs,“federallyrecognizedtribe”meansanytribeontheListofIndianEntitiesRecognizedandEligibletoReceiveServicesfromtheUnitedStatesBureauofIndianAffairs,publishedannuallyintheFederalRegister.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

TheNationalHistoricPreservationAct(NHPA)of1966,asamendedin2004,istheprimarymandategoverningprojectsunderfederaljurisdictionthatmayaffectculturalresources.IfimprovementsimplementedasapartofthisProposedProjectwerefundedbythefederalgovernmentorwerepartofafederalactionsuchasapermit,thenthisstatutewouldapply.Section106of theNHPArequires thatall federalagenciesreviewandevaluatehowtheir



5-3


actions or undertakings may affect historic properties, including those already listed innationalregistersorthathavenotyetbeenreviewedandconsideredforsuch.

Historicpropertiesareculturalresourcesthathavebeendeterminedeligible for listing inthe National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), according to criteria for evaluating thesignificancefoundin36CFR60.4,whichstates:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, andobjects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,andassociation,andthat:

areassociatedwithevents thathavemadeasignificantcontributiontothebroadpatternsofourhistory;or

areassociatedwiththelivesofpersonssignificantinourpast;or

embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method ofconstruction,orthatrepresenttheworkofamaster,orthatpossesshighartisticvalues,orthatrepresentasignificantanddistinguishableentitywhosecomponentsmaylackindividualdistinction;or

have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important inprehistoryorhistory.

5.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies

California Environmental Quality Act

CEQAprovidesextensiveguidanceonarchaeologicalandhistoricalresourcesmanagement.It is the primary mandate governing projects under state jurisdiction that may affectcultural resources. Local agencies are required to consider potential significantenvironmentalimpactstoculturalresourcesthatwouldresultfromproposedprojects.TheStateCEQAGuidelinesdefinethreewaysthatapropertymayqualifyasahistoricalresourceforthepurposesofCEQAreview:

The resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources(CRHR).

Theresourceisincludedinalocalregisterofhistoricalresources,asdefinedinPRCSection5020.1(k)oridentifiedassignificantinahistoricalresourcesurveythat meets the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), unless thepreponderanceofevidencedemonstratesthatit isnothistoricallyorculturallysignificant.

The lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported bysubstantialevidenceinlightofthewholerecord.

The CRHR criteria for evaluation of significance of historic properties are based on theNRHP.AculturalresourceiseligibleforinclusionintheCRHRifit:



5-4


isassociatedwitheventsthathavemadeasignificantcontributiontothebroadpatternsofCalifornia’shistoryandculturalheritage;

isassociatedwiththelivesofpersonsimportantinourpast;

embodies thedistinctivecharacteristicsofa type,period, region,ormethodofconstruction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, orpossesseshighartisticvalues;or

has yielded, ormay be likely to yield, information important in prehistory orhistory.

CEQAdefinesauniquearchaeologicalresourceasanarchaeologicalartifact,object,orsitethatcontainsinformationneededtoanswerimportantscientificresearchquestions;hasaspecial and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best availableexample of its type; or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized importantprehistoricorhistoriceventorperson.

California PRC Section 15064.5

ThisPRCsectionestablishes rules for theCEQAanalysisofhistorical resources, includingarchaeological resources, todeterminewhether aprojectmayhave a substantial adverseeffectonthesignificanceoftheresource.ThisincorporatesprovisionspreviouslycontainedinAppendixKoftheStateCEQAGuidelines.PRCSection15064.5(b)definesaprojectwithan effect thatmay cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historicalresourceasaproject thatmayhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment.Assignificantadverse change is the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of theresourceoritsimmediatesurroundingssuchthatthesignificanceofanhistoricalresourcewouldbemateriallyimpaired.”

When an initial study of the Proposed Project location identifies the existence of, or theprobablelikelihood,ofNativeAmericanhumanremains,aleadagencyshallworkwiththeappropriateNativeAmericans,as identifiedby theNativeAmericanHeritageCommission(NAHC)andasprovidedinPRCSection5097.98(seebelow).

California PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.995 (Native American Heritage)

PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.995 define cultural places as (1) a Native Americansanctified cemetery,placeofworship, religiousor ceremonial site,or sacredshrine (PRC,Section5097.9);and/or(2)aNativeAmericanhistoric,cultural,orsacredsitethatislistedormaybeeligible for listing in theCRHR,pursuant toPRCSection5024.1, including anyhistoricorprehistoricruins,anyburialground,oranyarchaeologicalorhistoricsite(PRC,Section5097.995).PRCSection5097.9 states thatnopublic agencyorprivatepartyonapublic property shall “interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native AmericanReligion.” It also states that “No such agency or party [shall] cause severe or irreparabledamage to any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious orceremonial site, or sacred shrine located on public property, except on a clear andconvincingshowingthatthepublicinterestandnecessitysorequire.”



5-5


California Health and Safety Code Section 7052 and PRC Section 5097.98

According to state law (California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; PRC, Section5097.98), if human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than adedicatedcemetery, thereshallbeno furtherexcavationordisturbanceof thesiteoranynearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the countycoronerhasbeeninformedandhasdeterminedthatnoinvestigationofthecauseofdeathisrequired.Further, if the remainsareofNativeAmericanorigin, thedescendants fromthedeceased Native Americans may make a recommendation to the landowner or personresponsiblefortheexcavationworkformeansoftreatingordisposingof,withappropriatedignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in PRC Section5097.98. If NAHC is unable to identify a descendent or the descendent fails to make arecommendation within 24 hours after being notified, the landowner or his or herauthorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated withNativeAmericanhumanremainswithappropriatedignityontheproperty,inalocationnotsubjecttofurtherandfuturesubsurfacedisturbance.AccordingtotheCaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode,disturbanceofNativeAmericancemeteriesisafelony(PRC,Section7052).

Executive Order B‐10‐11 and California PRC Section 11019.8(a)

California Executive Order (EO) B‐10‐11, which became law in September of 2011,mandates that every state agency and department shall encourage communication andconsultationwithCalifornia IndianTribes.Agenciesanddepartmentsshallpermitelectedofficialsandotherrepresentativesof tribalgovernments toprovidemeaningful input intothedevelopmentof legislation, regulations, rules, andpolicies onmatters thatmay affecttribalcommunities.EOB‐10‐11definesCaliforniaIndianTribesasallfederallyrecognizedtribesandotherCaliforniaNativeAmericans.ThisEOdoesnotcreateanyrightsorbenefitsagainsttheStateofCaliforniaoritsagencies,departments,entities,officers,employees,orany other person. California PRC Section 11019.8(a) specifically states that all stateagencies“areencouragedandauthorizedtocooperatewithfederallyrecognizedCaliforniaIndiantribesonmattersofeconomicdevelopmentandimprovementforthetribes.”

California Government Code Section 6254.10

PursuanttoCaliforniaGovernmentCode,Section6254.10,recordsaboutNativeAmericangraves, cemeteries, and sacred places, as well as information about the location ofarchaeological sites, are exempt from being disclosed to the public under the CaliforniaPublicRecordsAct.

California Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources Program

PRC Sections 6309, 6313, and 6314 pertain to the California State Lands Commission’s(SLC) Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources Program in the following ways. AllabandonedshipwrecksandallsubmergedarchaeologicalsitesandhistoricresourcesonorinthetideandsubmergedlandsofCaliforniaareunderthejurisdictionofSLC(PRC,Section6313[a]).SLCPRCSection6314prohibitsunauthorizedremovalordamagetosubmergedarchaeological or historic resources, including shipwrecks, aircraft, and Native Americansites. The SLC may grant permits for salvage operations, including archaeological



5-6


investigations,onsubmergedarchaeologicalorhistoricsiteswhentheproposedactivityisjustifiedbyaneducational,scientific,orculturalpurpose,orthereisaneedtoprotecttheintegrityof the siteor the resource (PRC, Section6313[d]).Recreational diving thatdoesnot disturb the subsurface or remove artifacts from a submerged archaeological site orhistoricresourcedoesnotrequireapermit(PRC,Section6309[g]).

Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (PRC, Section 36600 et seq.)

The Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (MMAIA) of 2000 established a newclassification system for allmarinemanaged areas (MMAs)with amission, statement ofobjectives, clearly defined designation guidelines, specific classification goals, and ascientificallybasedprocessfordesignatingsitesanddeterminingtheireffectiveness.TypesofMMAs include statemarine reserves (SMRs), statemarine parks (SMPs), statemarineconservation areas (SMCAs), state marine cultural preservation areas (SMCPAs), statemarinerecreationalmanagementareas(SMRMAs),andstatewaterqualityprotectionareas(SWQPAs). These classifications fall under the jurisdiction of different state regulatoryagencies.TheentitiesauthorizedtodesignateormanageMMAsaresummarized,asfollows:

The California Fish and Game Commission may designate, delete, or modifySMRMAs established by the commission for hunting purposes, SMRs, andSMCAs. Pursuant to this section, and consistentwith Section 2860 of the FishandGameCode, theFishandGameCommissionmayregulatecommercialandrecreationalfishingandanyothertakingofmarinespeciesinMMAs.

The State Parks and Recreation Commissionmay designate, delete, ormodifySMRs,SMPs,SMCAs,SMCPAs,andSMRMAs.

The StateWater Resources Control Board (SWRCB)may designate, delete, ormodifySWQPAs.

The Departmentmaymanage SMRs, SMCAs, SMRMAs established for huntingpurposesand,ifrequestedbySWRCB,SWQPAs,aswell.

TheCaliforniaDepartmentofParksandRecreation (StateParks)maymanageSMRs, SMPs, SMCAs, SMCPAs, and SMRMAs. State Parks’ authority over unitswithinthestateparksystemshallextendtounitsofthestateMMAssystemthataremanagedbyStateParks.

SWRCB and the state’s Regional Water Quality Control Boards may takeappropriateactionstoprotectSWQPAs.SWRCBmayrequesttheDepartmentorStateParkstotakeappropriatemanagementaction.

California Department of Parks and Recreation

StateParkshasbeeninvolvedintheplanningandimplementationofunderwaterparksandreserves since1960.Prior to thepassageof theMarineLifeProtectionAct (MLPA), StateParkshadestablished14marinemanagedareasstatewide. In1979,StateParkspreparedits first Underwater Parks Master Plan and updated the plan in 1984. There are manyarchaeological and cultural artifacts, such as shipwrecks, in the areas of the designatedUnderwater Parks. These parks provide opportunities for diving and underwaterphotography. Many of the planning elements and goals fundamental to State Parks’



5-7


Underwater Parks Program mirror those of the MLPA and the Marine Managed AreasImprovement Act (State Parks 2008). Underwater Parks in the Study Region includeMacKerricher State Park, Point Cabrillo, Russian Gulch State Park, and VanDamme StatePark(StateParks2011a).

StateParks’programgoalsinclude:

preservation of outstanding and representative examples of marine habitatsfoundineachseascapeprovinceoffthecoastofCalifornia;

protectionofmarineresources(floraandfauna)andecosystems;

preservingscenicunderwaterresources;

providing a variety of nearshore recreational opportunities, such as natureobservation,diving,underwaterphotography,fishingandboating;and

providing public education and interpretation of marine environments,includingintertidalareas.

5.3 Environmental Setting The environmental setting is divided into three primary sections. The first sectionsummarizes theprehistoryof theStudyRegion,historyof the regionbefore contactwithnonindigenous people, and history after exploration and settlement by nonindigenouscommunities. The second section addresses the ethnographic and present‐day culturallandscapes.Thisdiscussionoftheprehistoric,historic,andethnographiccontextsisusefultoevaluatetheimpactsonculturalresourcesinandadjacenttotheStudyRegion.Thefinalsectiondiscussestheknownphysicalculturalresources.

MuchofNorthernCalifornia’s legacy is connected toboth itsprecontactNativeAmericanpast and the European exploration and colonization by sea. The StudyRegion spans 225statutemiles(mi),measuredinastraightline,but517miofactualshoreline.Accordingly,ithasaveryrichmaritimeheritage.Culturalsitesthatare locatedoffthecoastofCaliforniainclude offshore rocks and islands, submerged Native American archaeological sites andobjects, historic shipwrecks, cargo spills, and landing sites. Sea level rise over the past10,000yearshassubmergedmanyarchaeologicalandhistoricalsitesandartifacts,someofwhichhaveyettobediscovered(StateParks2011b).

5.3.1 Historical Setting

Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals, includingvertebrates (animalswithbackbones), invertebrates (e.g., starfish, clams, ammonites, andmarine coral), and fossils of microscopic plants and animals (microfossils). The age andabundance of fossils depend on the location, topographic setting, and particular geologicformationinwhichtheyarefound.Fossildiscoveriesprovidescientificvaluebecausetheyhelpestablishahistorical recordofpastplantandanimal lifeandcanassistgeologists indating rock formations. The Study Region includes fossilized geologic strata and unique



5-8


geologicfeatures,suchasrockyintertidalzones,theintertidalportionofbeachesofvaryinggrainsizes,rockyreefs,andunderwaterpinnacles.

NotethattheProposedProjectislocatedentirelyinsubmergedwatersoronoffshorerocksand small islands. It isunlikely that theProposedProjectwill affect geological resources;therefore,paleontologicalresourcesarenotanalyzedfurtherinthisdocument.

Archaeological Resources

Archaeological resources have the potential to provide material evidence for cultures ofprecontactpopulationsandanswerimportantresearchquestionsabouthumanhistory.Thearchaeological remains of indigenous North American societies as they existed beforesubstantialcontactwithEuropeansandwrittenrecordsprovidevaluableinformationaboutparticularnativepeopleandcommunities.Thephysicalevidenceusuallytakestheformofartifacts,suchasfragmentsoftoolsorceramicvessels;features,suchasremnantsofwalls,cookinghearths,ortrashmiddens;andecologicalevidence,suchaspollensremainingfromplantsthatwereintheareawhentheactivitiesoccurred(Littleetal.2000).

CoastalsitesintheStudyRegionincludeareasforprecontactandethnographicsubsistencefishing(“fishingcamps”),marinemammalhunting,andotherresourcegatheringactivities.The same is trueof islands.Becauseof inaccessibility and lackof development, however,archaeological survey information for smaller offshore islands and rock pinnacles isextremelylimited(BLM2004).

The archaeological record of the north coast includes Native American data from over12,000yearsago.AccordingtotheCaliforniaNativeAmericanHeritageCommission(2009),tribal groupswith ancestral territories adjacent to the north coast Study Region includeCahto, Chilula, Hupa, Karuk, Lassik, Mattole, Nogati, Pomo, Tolowa, Sinkyone, Wailaki,Whilkut,Wiyot,Yuki,andYurok.While thepeoplehistorically lived inpermanentvillagesalong the coast and rivers, both coastal and inland groups moved to seasonal coastalvillagesforspecificharvestingandgatheringopportunities(MLPAI2010a).Theseandothertribes made and continue to make significant contributions to the history of the StudyRegion.Eachtribalgroupisuniquewithitsowndistinctlanguage,beliefsystem,practices,and other elements of culture. A number of north coast tribes submitted specific detailsaboutarchaeologicalresourcesthatareuniquetotheirtribes.ThesedetailscanbefoundintheTribalProfilesinAppendixEoftheRegionalProfile(MLPAI2010b).

Nonindigenous Exploration and Settlement

Russia,Spanish,andBritishshipssailedoffthecoastofNorthernCaliforniastartinginthelate1500s inMendocinoCountyandthe1700s inDelNorteandHumboldtCounties(VanKirk1999).Anumberofshipwrecksremain in thewatersof theStudyRegion,severalofwhichareinareascurrentlydesignatedasunderwaterparks,includingBrotherJonathanofftheSt.GeorgeReefinDelNorteCountyandtheFrolicnearPt.Cabrillo(see5.3.3,“Knownand Recorded Cultural Resources,” below). People of European and Asian descent beganarrivingenmassein1850whenmanywereluredbyabundantgoldminingintheKlamath,Salmon, and Trinity Rivers (Van Kirk 1999). The towns of Crescent City, Eureka, Union(laterArcata),andTrinidadbecamemajorscentersduringthegoldminingera(DelNorte



5-9


County Visitors Bureau 2011; MLPAI 2010a). As the rush for gold subsided in the late1800s,commercialactivityintheregionshiftedtosalmonfishingintheriversandtimberharvesting in the redwood forests. This shift brought new groups of people to the northcoast.Dairyfarmingalsoplayedasignificantroleinthedevelopmentoftheregionsincethelate19thcentury,andattractedyetanothersetofpeople(MLPAI2010a;VanKirk1999).Resourceextraction,especiallytimber,dominatedtheeconomicsandpoliticsoftheregionwell into the 1970s. College students and environmentalists began discovering the northcoast toward the end of the 20th century. These new residents began a movement toaddressresourceprotectionandrestorationthroughoutpartsoftheNorthCoast(VanKirk1999).

As nonindigenous settlers colonized the north coast, many tribes were relocated inlandand/orbecamelandlessorhomeless.Intheearly1900s,theU.S.Congresspassedaseriesoflaws that provided funds to purchase land for landless and homeless California Indians.These parcels of land were called rancherias and were often occupied by small familygroups or unrelated families. With the passage of Public Law 83‐280 in the mid 1950s,Californiatribeslostcontrolof40rancherias,andtheirlandsnolongerhadtheprotectionconferredbyfederalstatus.In1983,alawsuitresultedinrestoringfederalrecognitionto17rancherias,whileothersarestillwaitingforthereversaloftermination.Rancheriasinthenorth coast that regained their federal status through this lawsuit includeBlue Lake, ElkValley, Pinoleville, Potter Valley, Redwood Valley, Rhonerville, and Smith River (MLPAI2010c).

5.3.2 Cultural Landscape

Ethnographic Setting

Thenorth coast tribes and tribal communities, specifically the tribes ofMendocino, Lake,Humboldt, andDelNorteCounties,havea longcultural traditionofgathering,harvesting,and fishing for livingmarine resources for cultural and religious purposes aswell as forsubsistence. These tribes highlight that they inherited and possess strong values withregard to the stewardship and conservation of marine resources, including anunderstanding of the seasonal cycles important for subsistence fishing, hunting, andgathering(seeAppendixEoftheRegionalProfile[MLPAI2010b]).Despitehistoriceventsthat resulted in relocation or assimilation of tribes of the north coast of California,manycontinuetoresideinorneartheirancestralhomelandsinfargreaternumbersthaninothercoastal California regions. This has led to culturally, politically, and socially strong tribalgovernments and communities that are closely connected to particular locations in andadjacent to the Study Region (MLPAI 2010a). As noted under 5.3.1, “Historical Setting,”above, more specific details can be found in the Tribal Profiles submitted to the MLPAInitiative (see Appendix E of the Regional Profile [MLPAI 2010b]). See below for amoregeneraldiscussionoftheexistingethnographicenvironment.

Fortribesandtribalcommunities,everythinginthenaturalworldisculturallysignificant—“natural” is inseparable from “cultural” (InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council 2010).Theocean,beaches,estuaries,andtidelandswiththeirdiverseanimalandplantresourcescontinuetobeafundamentalpartoftribalidentityandwayoflife.Theirrelationshipsandinteractionswiththenaturalworldreflecttheirdeepconnectiontotheenvironment.Tribalpeoplebelievetheyhaveanongoingresponsibilitytobestewardsoftheirancestral lands



5-10


andresourcesthroughsustainableuseandmanagement.Itisgeneralpracticetotakeonlythose resources needed in a spirit of respect and reciprocity. The use of traditionalecological knowledge enabled tribes to thrive for thousands of years while creatingsignificant environmental benefits, as evidenced by the ecosystem conditions found byEuropean explorers during the contact period of the early to mid 19th century (MLPAI2010a).

Tribalmemberspracticemanytraditionalculturalusesofthecoastandoceanwatersthatareconsumptiveandnonconsumptive.Traditionalpracticesarespecifictodifferenttribes;they are not a single, large group of people. Consumptive uses include traditionalsubsistence,medicinal, spiritual, and ceremonial contexts.Nonconsumptive use examplesincludeuseof theviewshed1 fromaparticularplace forspiritualpurposes.Theseculturaluses are not recreational or commercial, though some tribes have commercial fishinginterests,aswell.Particularlocationsareimportantforcertainresourcesand/orusesbyagivenfamily,tribe,ortribalcommunity(MLPAI2010a).

Therichdiversityofmarineandcoastalresourcescontinuestobepartofthedailylivesoftribes. Important marine resources include salmon, clams and abalone (both as foodsourcesandfortheshells),mussels,seaweed,eels,crab,rockfish,steelhead,trout,seabass,perch,lingcod,surffish,candlefish(oreulachon),andseasalt.Subsistencefishingforcrab,salmon,steelhead,surffish(smelt),eels,mussels,andclams,amongothercoastalresources,occurs regularly from rocky beaches and in other coastal areas. Marine shells, such asabaloneandolivella,areespecially important forrepairingandmaking traditional regaliaused in ongoing ceremonies. Geological resourceswith cultural significance found in thecoastalzoneinclude,butarenotlimitedto,steatiteandchert,whichareminedorcollectedtomakeitemssuchaspolishedstonebowlsandpipes,andflaked‐stoneknivesandarrowpoints,respectively.Othergeologicalfeaturesalongthecoastandinnearshoreandoffshoresettings figure prominently in the stories and cultural traditions of tribes and tribalcommunities. For example, most sea stacks, offshore rocks, and rocky points orprominences have ancient tribal names and histories associated with them, as well ascertain protocols for respecting these sites. Tribes of the north coast have expressed theimportance of retaining access to such places, resources, and activities, as they are anintegralpartof their cultureand identity.Additionally, certainareasalong thecoasthavehistoric, archaeological, and traditional cultural significance, including submerged burialgroundsandvillagesites(MLPAI2010a).

Eachtribeinthenorthcoastisuniqueandcomplex.ThefollowingisalistoffederallyrecognizedtribescurrentlypracticingtraditionalfishingandgatheringintheStudyRegion(MLPAI2010a;Rosales,pers.comm.,October19,2011),withnamesasreflectedonthecurrentListofIndianEntitiesRecognizedandEligibletoReceiveServicesfromtheUnitedStatesBureauofIndianAffairs,publishedintheFederalRegister.Theasterisk(*)identifiestribesthatcomprisetheInterTribalSinkyoneWildernessCouncil,whichisaconsortiumof10federallyrecognizedtribesinMendocinoandLakeCounties.Notethatsomeadditionalnon‐federallyrecognizedtribesmaynotbeincludedinthislist,thoughtheyareconsideredinthediscussionsthatfollow.

BearRiverBandoftheRohnervilleRancheria 1 Aviewshedisanareaofland,water,orotherenvironmentalfeaturethatisvisibletothehumaneyefromafixedvantagepoint.



5-11


BigLagoonRancheria

BigValleyBandofPomoIndiansoftheBigValleyRancheria

BlueLakeRancheria

CahtoIndianTribeoftheLaytonvilleRancheria*

Cher‐AeHeightsIndianCommunityoftheTrinidadRancheria

CoyoteValleyBandofPomoIndians*

ElemIndianColonyofPomoIndiansoftheSulphurBankRancheria

ElkValleyRancheria,California

GuidivilleRancheria

HabematolelPomoofUpperLake

HoopaValleyTribe

HoplandBandofPomoIndiansoftheHoplandRancheria*

LowerLakeRancheria

ManchesterBandofPomoIndiansoftheManchester‐PointArenaRancheria

MiddletownRancheriaofPomoIndians

PinolevillePomoNation*

PotterValleyTribe*

RedwoodValleyRancheriaofPomoIndians*

ResighiniRancheria

RobinsonRancheriaofPomoIndians*

RoundValleyIndianTribesoftheRoundValleyReservation*

ScottsValleyBandofPomoIndians*

SherwoodValleyRancheriaofPomoIndians*

SmithRiverRancheria

WiyotTribe

YurokTribeoftheYurokReservation

Traditional Cultural Properties

Cultural landscapes are the result of the interaction between people and the naturallandscape. The features of a cultural landscape include topography, vegetation, waterfeatures,andstructures.ForaculturallandscapetobelistedontheNRHPasaTCP,itmusthave significant cultural worth. Examples of landscapes possessing such significanceinclude:

a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American groupaboutitsorigins,itsculturalhistory,orthenatureoftheworld;



5-12


aruralcommunitywhoseorganization,buildingsandstructures,orpatternsoflandusereflecttheculturaltraditionsvaluedbyitslong‐termresidents;

an urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular culturalgroup,andthatreflectsitsbeliefsandpractices;

alocationwhereNativeAmericanreligiouspractitionershavehistoricallygone,and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities inaccordancewithtraditionalculturalrulesofpractice;and

alocationwhereacommunityhastraditionallycarriedouteconomic,artistic,orotherculturalpracticesimportantinmaintainingitshistoricidentity.

ATCP,then,canbedefinedgenerallyasaculturallandscapethatiseligibleforinclusionintheNRHPbecauseofitsassociationwithculturalpracticesorbeliefsofalivingcommunitythat (a)are rooted in that community'shistory, and (b)are important inmaintaining thecontinuingculturalidentityofthecommunity(ParkerandKing1998).IntheStudyRegion,TCPsareofparticularsignificancetotribesandtribalcommunitiesforthecontinuationoftraditional religiousand ceremonial activities, andalso for the continuationof traditionalcultural harvesting and gathering (Buckskin, pers. comm., 2011). Practically the entireStudy Region is a TCP for one or several of the tribes or tribal communities that haveinhabited the region for millennia (Buckskin, pers. comm., 2011; Pfieffer, pers. comm.,2011)

Formanyof thetribesof theNorthCoastofCalifornia,offshorerocksandislandsplayanimportantroleintheirmythologies.Theseoffshorerocksandislandsalsohaveserved,andcontinuetoserve,astraditionalresourceprocurementareas(BLM2004).Thetribesregardareaswheretheyhavegatheredandharvestedformanygenerationsassitesoftraditionalculturalresourcesthatshouldbeentitledtoprotectionunderthelaw,regardlessofwhetherthey are formally acknowledged as TCPs under the applicable historic preservation laws(Rosales,pers.comm.,October13,2011).

5.3.3 Known and Recorded Cultural Resources

Archival research was completed at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of theCaliforniaHistoricalResourcesInformationSystem(NWICfilenumberP‐12‐001174).Thisrecordssearchofthestudyareawascompletedto(1)determinewhetherknownculturalresources had been recorded within or adjacent to the Study Region, (2) assess thelikelihood of unrecorded cultural resources based on historical references and thedistribution of environmental settings of nearby sites, and (3) develop a context foridentification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources. Any submerged resourcethat has remained in statewaters formore than 50 years is presumed to be historicallysignificant. The titles to all abandoned shipwrecks, archaeological sites, and historic andcultural resources on or in the tide and submerged lands of state waters are under thejurisdiction of SLC (Oggins, pers. comm., 2011). Using the archival research results, thelocations of known cultural resources were evaluated and compared with the proposedlocationsfortheProposedProject.

TheculturalresourcesresearchareaincorporatedtheareafromAlderCreekinMendocinoCountynorthtotheCalifornia/Oregonborder,andextendedfromthemeanhighwaterline



5-13


westfor3nauticalmiles(nm)(3.4mi).Whereoffshorerockswithinstatewaterjurisdictionwerepresent,anareaextending3nmbeyondtherockswas included.A fieldsurveywasnotconductedforthisanalysisbecauseofthespatialextentoftheStudyRegion.Instead,thecultural resources discussion relies on geographic information from variable historicsources.Accordingly,a largerareawasincludedtoaccountformappingerrorsthatmightbe present within the dataset of cultural resource locations. Consequently, some of theculturalresourcesindentifiedarepossiblyoutsideofstatewaters.

Onehundred and fifty‐seven cultural resourceswere identifiedalong the entire lengthofthe research area.Of the157known sites, there are 14 site types,with some sitesbeingmore than one type. There are 48 lithic scatters, 45 midden sites, 38 shell scatters, 17historic debris sites, 10 village sites, four buildings, three campsites, two structures, onequarry,oneceremonial site,onegatheringarea,onerockshelter,onerailroadgrade,andonelithicisolaterecorded.Owingtoculturalsensitivity,theexactlocationsareconfidential.However, the majority of these sites are not located within the Proposed Project StudyRegion.Mostarelocatedabovethemeanhighwaterline,andthusareoutsidetheProjectStudyRegion,oftenoncoastalbluffs.OneexceptionistheMattoleLumberCompanyWharfandRailroad,which is locatedpartiallybelowthemeanhighwater lineandadjacent toaproposedMPA;thissiteisdiscussedbelow.

It is important to note that less than 10% of the area has been surveyed for culturalresources. Thus, it is likely that additional resources would be identified. Below is adiscussionofknownphysicalhistoricalandculturalresourcesintheStudyRegion.

Mattole Lumber Company Wharf and Railroad

TheMattoleLumberCompanyWharfwas20feetwideandextendednorthalongthecoastofHumboldtCounty,fromthemouthoftheMattoleRiverfor2000feetandthenacrosstheoceantoalargerock.ThislocationisjusteastoftheproposedMattoleCanyonSMR,whichisanoffshoreMPAlocatedstarting1mifromshore.Arailroadwaslaidontopofthewharfand continued inland for 2mi toward the town of Petrolia. All that remains visible areseverallengthsofrustyrailsthathavebeendisplacedandnowrestnorthofthemouthofthe Mattole River. One locomotive was salvaged and placed in McKinleyville. All otherremnantsoftheMattoleLumberCompanyWharfandRailroadhavebeenwashedouttosea(StateParks1993).

Offshore Rocks and Islands

ThereisevidencethatCalifornia’soffshorerocksandislandshavebeenusedbyhumansforat least10,000years.Nativepopulationsalongthecoastcontinuetouseoffshoreareasastemporary landingareas,resourceprocurement locations,habitationsites,and landmarksforbothoffshoreandonshorenavigation(BLM2004).Historicalliteratureandphotographsshowthatoffshorerocksand islandshavealsobeenused formultiplepurposessince thearrival of Europeans to the California coast. Owing to the hazards that they cause tonavigation, theyhave alsobeen responsible fornumerous shipwrecksover theyears andsome of the debris is still present. Ships’ logs from Cabrillo in 1539 and Drake in 1579indicatethattheyhuntedsealionsandbirdsthatrestonoffshorerocksalongthenorthernCaliforniacoast.Later, theSpanishandRussiansusedoffshorerocksforhuntingactivities



5-14


and for docking or anchoring their ships. These rocks were also used to stabilize thetransfer of timber to ships thatwere anchored offshore (State Parks 1993). Some of theoffshorerocksandislandsarelocationsforhistoriclighthouses(BLM2004).

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages the California Coastal NationalMonument(CCNM)thatencompassesmorethan20,000smallislands,offshorerocks,reefs,andpinnaclesexposedabovemeanhightidewithin12nmofthecoaststatewide.Manyoftheseislands,rocks,pinnacles,andexposedreefsoccurwithinmarineprotectedarea(MPA)boundariesoftheProposedProject,andalloftheproposedspecialclosuresareidentifiedaroundnamedrock features that arealsopartof theCCNM.Regulations regardingBLM’sCCNMarediscussedinfurtherdetailsinSection6.1,“LandUseandUtilities.”

Shipwrecks

A shipwreck databasemaintained by SLCwas consulted to identifywrecks that could bewithinproposedMPAsorspecialclosures.AreviewoftheSLCshipwreckdatabaserevealedthat 132 wrecks are documented offshore of the Mendocino County, 131 in HumboldtCounty, and 23 in Del Norte County. A handful of these are outside the 3‐nm boundary.Wreck locations were plotted using latitude and longitude information from the SLCdatabase. Initial plottingwas done using NAD 27, the standard datum formapping untilrecently.Thisplottedseveralwrecklocationswellinland,andthuslocationswereadjustedtoNAD83,thedefaultformanymodernmappingapplications.Whilethisimprovedmostofthe locations, it is clear that in some cases, location information contains errors in theoriginaldata.Table5‐1 shows thehistoricshipwreck locations thatappear insideor lessthan1mifromtheProposedProjectandrelevantproposedOptions.Thenearbylocationsare included in the table toaccount for thepossibilityofmappingerrordescribedabove.Additionally,shipwrecksidentifiedintheSLCdatabaseareforthemostpartmerelythelastreported sighting of a sinking ship rather than a verified location of a shipwreck. Theselimitations notwithstanding, the shipwreck database is a useful indicator of an area’ssensitivityforshipwrecks.

TheProposedProjectwouldextendtheboundariesoffouroftheexistingMPAs,andsotheyare included in Table 5‐1. The fifth existing MPA, Punta Gorda SMR, which would beremoved under the Proposed Project, contains one known shipwreck, theWizard, and isadjacenttoseveralothers(i.e.,specifically,theHumboldt,Norfolk,Quinalt,andWaldero).

Table 5‐1. Proposed MPAs and Special Closures, and Known Shipwreck Sites*

Proposed MPAs, Proposed MPAs with Boundary Options, and Special Closures

Known Shipwrecks Inside the MPA or Special Closure

Known Shipwrecks Within 1 Mile of the MPA or Special Closure

PyramidPointSMCA None NonePyramidPointSMCAOption(boundaryextension)

None CaritasNicholasVanBergen

PointSt.GeorgeReefOffshoreSMCA QueenChristina NoneSouthwestSealRockSpecialClosure None NoneCastleRockSpecialClosure None NoneFalseKlamathRockSpecialClosure None NoneReadingRockSMCA(onshore) AmandaAger None



5-15






AshmeDawn

ReadingRockSMR(offshore) None NoneSamoaSMCA Collaroy

WilmingtonNone

SouthHumboldtBaySMRMA None NoneSouthHumboldtBaySMRMAOption(boundaryextension)

None None

SugarloafIslandSpecialClosure None HyackJuntaWallaWalla

SouthCapeMendocinoSMR None AlaskaCleoneEmidioHyackJuntaMarylandMaryHanlonRiversideSeaPirateWallaWalla

SteamboatRockSpecialClosure None NoneMattoleCanyonSMR None NorthFork

WalderoSeaLionGulchSMR None IndianHarbor

MercedSeaLionGulchSMROption(boundaryextension)

None None

BigFlatSMCA None ColumbiaDaisyPutnamOccidental

DoubleConeRockSMCA None VentureRockportRocksSpecialClosure None VentureVizcainoRockSpecialClosure None VentureTenMileSMR None JohnandSamuelTenMileBeachSMCA None NoneTenMileBeachSMCAOption None NoneTenMileEstuarySMCA None NoneMacKerricherSMCA AchillePaladini NonePointCabrilloSMR Frolic NoneRussianGulchSMCA AnnaSophia

FarWestStocktonCity

BigRiverEstuarySMCA None NoneVanDammeSMCA FrancisHelen

SunolAgnesNicholaisenGoldenRuleLCLaneLAPaz



5-16






NLDrewSiliasCoombs

NavarroRiverSMCA None JEppingerJFLuntSovereignVenus

Notes:MPA=marineprotectedarea,SMCA=statemarineconservationarea,SMR=statemarinereserve,SMRMA=statemarinerecreationalmanagementarea

* DataarefromtheCaliforniaStateLandCommission’sShipwreckDatabase,whichcanbefoundathttp://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp.

Source:DatacompiledbyHorizonWaterandEnvironmentin2011

Underwater Parks

StateParks established anunderwaterparksprogram in1968 topreserveareas that arerepresentativeofCalifornia’suniquenaturalunderwaterecosystems.Theobjectivesoftheunderwaterparksprogramincludeprovidingrecreationalopportunities,particularlynearurban areas (see Section 6.3, “Recreation”). The areas were established by State Parksthroughobtainingwaterbottom leases fromSLCadjacent to terrestrial stateparks (StateParks2010).TheyaremanagedbyStateParkstoachievebothpreservationandrecreation(StateParks2011c).

StateParksprepareditsfirstUnderwaterParksMasterPlanin1979andupdatedtheplanin 1984. In 1998, the California Natural Resources Agency convened marine programplannersfromStateParks,theDepartment,andotheragenciestoreviewthestate’sexistingmarine managed areas and to recommend a unified classification system for marinemanaged areas. The committee’s recommendations formed the foundation of theclassificationstatuesintheMMAIAof2000.StateParks’UnderwaterParksProgramgoalsservedasaframeworkfortheMPAdesignationofSMP,definedintheMMAIA(StateParks2010).InlightofthisapplicationoftheMMAIAtoimplementationoftheMLPA,StateParksshifteditsplanningeffortsfromupdatingits1984UnderwaterParksMasterPlantohelpingto ensure that the Commission’s California Marine Life Protection Act: Master Plan forMarineProtectedAreasandMarineLifeProtectionProgramadoptedpursuanttotheMLPAincorporatesthosesharedgoalsoftheStateParks’UnderwaterParksProgram(StateParks2010).

StateParksistheonlyentitywithauthoritytodesignate,delete,ormodifySMPs.SMPsareprimarily intended toprotectnatural resources;however, theymayalso containheritagecharacteristicssuchassuperlativeunderwatersceneryandgeology,or importantculturalfeatures that enhance educational opportunities (see also Section 6.4, “Research andEducation”).Whereimportantculturalheritageelementsexistbutnaturalresourcevaluesdo not justify the classification of SMP or SMR, the area could be considered forclassificationasaSMCPAbytheStateParkandRecreationCommissionoutsidetheMLPAmasterplanprocess(StateParks2010).



5-17


IntheStudyRegion,therearefourexistingunderwaterparks.TheseunderwaterparksarecontainedwithinfourofthefiveexistingMPAsintheStudyRegion.Alloftheunderwaterparkscontainshipwrecksandarepopularwithsportdivers.Remnantsoflandingsitesarein someof them.Most of these areas havebeenwell explored and are known to containotherprehistoricandhistoricartifacts.

MacKerricher State Park

The underwater park at MacKerricher State Park is off the coast, north of Fort Bragg.Archaeological surveys have found prehistoric artifacts, including shell middens, shellscatters,andlithicscatters.Theterrestrialportionoftheparkcontainsmanyremindersofthe richnatural and cultural resourcesof the area relating to the sea.Of specialnote arehistoriceraresources,suchasremnantguidewirepinsdrivenintotherockyshorelinethatonce held a wire lumber chute and wharf, railroad rails, and support timbers for apedestrianoverpass(StateParks2011a).

Point Cabrillo Light Station

In1850, theclippershipFrolicwreckedonareefnearCasperHeadlands,off thecoastofMendocinoCounty,whilecarryingcargofromChinatoSanFranciscoduringtheGoldRush.HerstoryisamongthemostfascinatinginCaliforniashipwreckhistory,andwascriticalinthedesignationofPointCabrilloasanunderwaterpark.Theartifactsprovideaglimpseofthe flurryofactivitythatbroughtpeopleandgoodsfromallovertheworldtotheGoldenState. Silver tinder boxes, oyster shell window glass, and Chinese porcelain have beenrecoveredandexhibited.Thewrecksiteremainsanimpressiveunderseahistoricalfeature.Historians consider the shipwreck as "themost significant shipwreck on thewest coast"(StateParks2011a,2011b).

ThePointCabrilloLight StationPreserve is on the landadjacent to theunderwaterpark.The lighthousebeganoperation in1909.Thepreserve’s land includes the lighthouse andthreeoriginallightkeepers’housesandoutbuildings(StateParks2011a).

Russian Gulch State Park

Russian Gulch State Park is located approximately 10 miles south of Fort Bragg. Theunderwaterparkextendsoutaround thenorthernheadland.Archaeological surveyshavefoundprehistoricartifacts, includingshellmiddens.Sportdivershavesalvagedananchor,chain, and vessel transom piece recovered within the underwater park that are nowdisplayed on the front lawn of the Park’s Mendocino District Headquarters (State Parks2011a).

The 6‐foot‐tall iron anchor has a folding stock and shackle, placing it historically in thesecondhalfofthe19thcentury.Thesaltcorrosionontheironandthebrokenarmandflukesuggest that it had been underwater for a long period of time before removal, and thebroken arm further indicates that the anchor was probably embedded in reef whenremoved. Lying next to the anchor is a length of iron chain associated with sea‐goingvessels. The link style on the chain is oblong single link. The size and oval shape of theindividual links place the chain circa mid‐19th century. A short fragment of starboard,



5-18


transomcap‐railleansagainsttheanchor.Thefragmentstillretainsremnantsofpaintandcurvatureofthetransom.Thepiececouldpossiblybeoffaschoonerorfishingvessel(StateParks2011a).

Van Damme State Park

TheunderwaterparkofVanDammeStateParkencompassesasmallcove.TheterrestrialportionofVanDammeStateParkandthehistoriccommunityofLittleRiverwraparoundthe bluffs overlooking the underwater park and include the famous Mendocino pygmycypress forest. Prehistoric artifacts in the park include shell middens. Located near thevisitor’scenterisalarge,ironkedginganchor.Strappedtoawoodenpostwithironwheels,the anchor is of the folding stockvariety.The shackle at the topof the anchorplaces thedateoftheartifactinthesecondhalfofthe19thcentury(StateParks2011a).

5.4 Impact Analysis

5.4.1 Methodology

Cultural resource surveys were not performed for this analysis because the geographicextentoftheStudyRegionrenderedsuchsurveysinfeasible.Instead,thisdiscussionrelieson publicly available documents, in particular, the tribal profiles submitted by the northcoast tribes (MLPAI 2010b), appended to theRegionalProfileof theStudyRegion (MLPAI2010a), and made publicly available through North Coast MLPA planning documents.Additionally,thisanalysisconsideredinformationfromanarchivalrecordsearchattheNWICoftheCaliforniaHistoricalResourcesInformationSystem.

SubsistencefishingandgatheringisaddressedinSection6.6,“EnvironmentalJustice,”andwill not be discussed in detail in this chapter. Paleontological resources (SignificanceCriterionD,below)havebeenpreviouslydiscussedundersection5.3.1,“HistoricalSetting,”andaredismissedfromthisimpactdiscussion.

5.4.2 Criteria for Determining Significance

Based on significance criteria from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines andprofessional expertise, the Proposed Project would have a significant impact on culturalresourcesifitwould:

A. cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resourcethat is either listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP, the CRHR, or a localregisterofhistoricresources(includingTCPs);

B. substantially alter the characteristics of, or reduce access to, locations thatprovideuniqueethnicorculturalvaluestoNativeAmericans(suchasreligiousor sacred sites), or otherwise substantially impair the ability for NativeAmericanstoengageintraditionalculturalpractices;

C. causeasubstantialadversechange inthesignificanceofuniquearchaeologicalresources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly



5-19


demonstrated that, withoutmerely adding to the current body of knowledge,there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answerimportantscientificresearchquestions,hasaspecialandparticularqualitysuchasbeingtheoldestorbestavailableexampleofitstype,orisdirectlyassociatedwith a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event orperson);

D. disturbordestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature;or

E. disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formalcemeteries.

5.4.3 Environmental Impacts

Impact CR‐1: Adverse Effects to Underwater Maritime‐related Historical Resources (Significance Criterion A) ThisimpactdiscussionhighlightsthepotentialfortheProposedProjecttoadverselyaffecthistoric‐eraresources,particularlysunkenvessels, loadingdocks,andrelatedartifacts.Asnotedunder5.3.3,“KnownandRecordedCulturalResources,”shipwrecklocationsareoftenrecordedatthesitewherethevesselwaslastseenandmightnotindicatewherethesunkenvessel actually settled on the seafloor. Also, theremight be somemapping discrepanciesresultingfromadifferenceindatumusedtomapthesites;however,spatialanalysisofthelocations mapped with the two different reference standards (NAD 27 and NAD 83)resulted in negligible differences. Nonetheless, this evaluation includes a radius of 1 miaroundeachMPA.AccordingtoTable5‐1,theProposedProjectwouldincludethefollowingMPAsknowntocontainorbeadjacenttofeaturesconducivetoshipwrecks(totalnumbersofrecordedsunkenvesselsareinparentheses):

PointSt.GeorgeReefOffshoreSMCA(1)

ReadingRockSMCA(3)

SamoaSMCA(2)

SugarloafIslandSpecialClosure(3)

SouthCapeMendocinoSMR(10)

MattoleCanyonSMR(2)

SeaLionGulchSMR(2)

BigFlatSMCA(3)

DoubleConeRockSMCA(1)

RockportRocksSpecialClosure(1)

VizcainoRockSpecialClosure(1)

MacKerricherSMCA(1)

PointCabrilloSMR(1)

RussianGulchSMCA(3)



5-20


VanDammeSMCA(8)

NavarroRiverSMCA(4)

The following four proposedMPAs are sites that are currently designated as underwaterparksandmanagedbyStateParks:MacKerricherSMCA,PointCabrilloSMR,RussianGulchSMCA,andVanDammeSMCA.Theprotectionofhistoricalresourcesisoneoftheobjectivesbehind the establishment of the existing underwater parks. Enlarging these MPAs asproposedwouldaddadditionalprotectiontotheseareas.

There are other artifacts in addition to shipwrecks submerged in the Study Region;however, very fewof thesehavebeendocumented.Oneexception is theMattoleLumberCompanyWharf andRailroad.Thishistoric site is located1mi inland from theproposedoffshoreMattoleCanyonSMR;therefore,thisMPAwouldnotdirectlyalteractivityaroundthis known historic resource. The Proposed Projectwould remove the Punta Gorda SMRwherethereareanumberofknownshipwrecks.

The proposed Options would alter the boundaries of some of the proposed MPAs. Theboundary extension for Pyramid Point SMCA would increase protection of knownshipwrecks,whilemoving the southernboundaryof SeaLionGulch SMRwoulddecreaseprotectionofknownshipwrecks.

TheProposedProjectinvolvedtheextensiveinputofregionalstakeholders,includinglocalresidents, conservation organizations, scientists, commercial and recreational fishermen,tribesandtribalcommunities,andrecreationalusersoftheocean.Thus,thedesignofthenetwork of MPAs in the Proposed Project included the communities’ desire to protectheritage sites. Furthermore, current state law prohibits all unauthorized salvage andremovalofartifactsfromsubmergedshipwrecks,aircraft,andotherhistoricalresourcesinstatewaters (PRC,Sections6313and6314).TheProposedProjectwouldnotmodify thisexisting state law. Additionally, the Proposed Projectwould not result in construction ordisturbanceoftheseafloororbottomsofbaysorestuaries;therefore,itwouldnotdirectlydisturb any historical resources. The Proposed Project wouldminimize the potential forfishing activity to accidentally disturb underwater historical resources, resulting inprotection of submerged historical maritime resources. On the other hand, there is apossibility that fishing might increase in areas adjacent to the MPAs and thatnonconsumptive recreational activity might increase within some areas of the ProposedProject.TheseincreasesmightleadtomoredisturbancestohistoricalresourcesoutsideofMPAsfromdisplacedfishingeffort,and insideMPAsbydiversandothernonconsumptiveusers.Insummary,certainaspectsoftheProposedProjectwouldbeprotectiveofculturalresources (e.g., reduced potential for disturbance of submerged resources), while otherscould be adverse, but not significantly so (e.g., increased nonconsumptive recreationalactivities in the locations of these resources). Overall, this impact would be less thansignificant.

Level of Significance: Less than Significant



5-21


Impact CR‐2: Indirect Adverse Effects to Land‐based Maritime Historical Resources (Significance Criterion A) TheProposedProjectwouldaffectfishingregulationsinstatewatersfromthemeanhigh‐tidelineto3nmseaward.Itwouldnotinvolveanyconstructionordisturbanceoftheearth,neither onshore nor offshore; thus, it would not directly impact land‐based historicalresources. However, the Proposed Project could potentially result in the loss of someexistingcommercialandrecreationalusesthatcouldleadtoanindirectdecayofbuildingsandstructuresrelatedtothemaritimehistoryofcoastalcommunities.Thislosswouldonlyoccur if substantial business failure occurred throughout the coastal communities; ifhistorical resources were altered or demolished; or if no measures were taken bypreservation,planning,orculturalorganizationstopreservethem.Sucharesultisnotlikelybecause the Proposed Project would not impose new restrictions that would impair thefishing industry throughout the entire north coast. The Proposed Projectwould result intakerestrictions in13%of theregion.Themostrestrictiveof theMPAs, theSMRs,wouldincludelessthan5%oftheStudyRegion.Theremaining8%oftheStudyRegionthatwouldbedesignatedasSMCAswouldallowsomeamountofrecreationaland/orcommercialtake.TheProposedProjectwouldnotplaceanynewrestrictionsonareasbetweenandbeyondtheMPAs; thus, it is not likely that the fishing industrywould suffer from awidespreadcollapse.Furthermore, theproposedMPAsarespacedoverastraight‐linedistanceof225mi(517miofactualshoreline)and,exceptinafewcases,therearenoMPAswithin5milesofeithersideof aport (and inmanycasesMPAsareat least10miaway).Thegoalsandobjectives of the design of theMPAs included consideration of the health and vitality ofcoastal communities, ports, andharbors.Distance fromportswas amajor priority in thedesignoftheMPAnetwork,tominimizesocioeconomicimpactsonthenorthcoastregion(MLPAI2010c);therefore,itisnotlikelythattheProposedProjectwouldcausecommunity‐wide economic failure and decay that would lead to the loss of historical maritimeproperties.This impacton land‐basedmaritimehistorical resourceswouldbe consideredlessthansignificant.


Impact CR‐3: Adverse Impacts on Traditional Cultural Properties and Activities Involving Take2 by Federally Recognized Tribes (Significance Criterion B) AnumberoftriballandsareonthebordersofproposedMPAs.Tribaljurisdictionincludestheareainlandfrommeanhightide.However,theproposedMPAsarebelowthemeanhightide line; therefore, the Proposed Project is adjacent to, but does not occur on, tribalreservationsorrancherias.Nonetheless,TCPsmaybelocatedwithintheboundariesoftheproposedMPAs.Asdescribedaboveunder5.3.2,“CulturalLandscapes,”TCPsarelocationsthat are eligible to be listed on the NRHP if they have significant cultural worth. The 2 Some tribesand tribal communitieshave raisedconcernabout the term 'Tribal take'used in theproposedregulations. Based on information received by tribal members, to completely encompass the full range oftraditionalculturalextractiveactivitiesofCaliforniaIndianTribesinthisarea, it isnecessarytounderstandthat,tomembersofthenorthcoasttribesandtribalcommunities,theterm"tribaltake"includesgathering,harvestingandfishingforculturalandreligiouspurposesaswellasforsubsistence.Pursuanttotribalculture,all three termsmust be used because each conveys specific and unique kinds of activities that cannot beadequatelyencompassedbyasingleterm.Understatestatute,theterm"take"isclearand,combinedwiththeallowedusesdefinedintheMPAspecificregulations,unambiguous.InFishandGameCodeSection86,"Take"meanshunt,pursue,catch,capture,orkill,orattempttohunt,pursue,catch,capture,orkill.TheCaliforniaCode of Regulations Title 14 Section 1.80 defines "Take" as hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill fish,amphibians,reptiles,mollusks,crustaceansorinvertebratesorattemptingtodoso.



5-22


traditional cultural significanceof ahistoricproperty isdeterminedby the importanceofthepropertytothebeliefs,customs,andpracticesofalivingcommunityofpeoplethathavebeenpasseddownthroughgenerations(ParkerandKing1998).Forthetribesofthenorthcoast, TCPs include locations for religious and spiritual ceremonies and sites forimplementing cultural traditions of harvesting and gathering. In addition to TCPs otherlocationsnoteligibleforlistingmayalsobeofculturalsignificancetotribes.Thisdiscussionevaluates potential adverse impacts on locations where federally recognized tribes haveculturaltiesthatinvolveconsumptionofmarineresources(includingbothTCPsandotherlocations).

Chapter 2, “Project Description,” relates that the Commission requested that federallyrecognizedtribessubmittotheCommissionfactualrecordsofhistoricandcurrentusesinspecific geographiesproposed asMPAs, other than SMRs.The submittals receivedby theCommissionwereused toprovide fornon‐commercial take inproposedMPAs,except forthose designated as SMRs, by tribeswho submitted factual records3 (see Table 2‐1). TheProposedProject’sSMRswherenotakewouldbeallowedareasfollows:

ReadingRockSMR(OptionA)

SouthCapeMendocinoSMR

MattoleCanyonSMR

SeaLionGulchSMR

TenMileSMR

PointCabrilloSMR

Altogether, the Proposed SMRs total less than 5%of the StudyRegion. Two of the SMRs(Reading Rock andMattole Canyon) are offshore and difficult to access owing the roughconditionsoffthenorthcoast.TheProposedProjectwouldremovefishingrestrictionsfromtheexistingPuntaGordaSMRandplacetwonewlargerSMRs(MattoleCanyonandSeaLionGulch)oneithersideofthePuntaGordaSMRsite,foranetincreaseof18mi2or3.9miinalongshorespan(notethatthe3mispanofMattoleCanyonSMRisoffshore).

Thespecialclosureswouldpreventallpeople,includingtribes,fromaccessingwaterwithin300 feet of the shoreline around offshore rocks and islands. Four of the special closures(FalseKlamathRock,SteamboatRock,RockportRocks,andVizcainoRock)wouldbeclosedfor6monthsoftheyear.Theremainingthreespecialclosures(SouthwestSealRock,CastleRock,andSugarloafIsland)wouldbeclosedyear‐round.DetailsregardingtherationalefortheseprotectiveclosuresarelistedinTable4‐9ofChapter4,“BiologicalResources.”Theseareas are designed to protect several species of seabirds and marine mammals fromdisturbance by approachingwatercraft.Many of these species are federally listed and/orstate‐listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern (MLPAI 2010d).Although tribes traditionally have hunted on some of the areas surrounded by proposedspecialclosures,existinglawsareinplacefortheprotectionofmanyofthesespeciesthatcurrentlypreventtheirtake.TheProposedProjectwouldnotconflictwithorsupersedeanystateorfederallawsregardingthetakeofprotected,threatened,orendangeredspecies.

3Allthetribeslistedaboveinsection5.3.2“CulturalLandscape,”submittedfactualrecordstotheCommission,exceptfortheBigLagoonRancheria,BlueLakeRancheria,andHoopaValleyTribe.



5-23


Among the proposed Options for individual MPAs in the Proposed Project, one Optionwould change thedesignationofReadingRock SMR to an SMCA so that traditional tribaltakecouldcontinuewithinitsboundaries.OtherproposedOptionswouldextendorchangeboundaries of some of the MPAs; however, regulations regarding allowable take byfederallyrecognizedtribeswouldbethesameasintheProposedProject.

Because of the large number of tribes adjacent to the Study Region still practicingtraditional cultural activities (see section 5.3.2, “Cultural Landscapes”), the MLPAI staffmadeefforts tocommunicatewith tribesandtribalcommunities throughout theplanningprocess.InAugust2009,MLPIAhostedaTribalInformationalSessioninEureka,California(seeTable6.6‐4inSection6.6,“EnvironmentalJustice”).Thetribesdidnotcreatetheirownproposals, but instead joined the North Coast Regional Stakeholders Group (NCRSG), adiversegroupofpeoplewith localknowledge including,amongothers, representativesofrecreational angling and diving groups, tribes, commercial fishing and other ocean‐dependent business interests, ports and harbors, conservation groups, educational andresearch interests, andgovernmentagencies (MLPAI2010e).Themembersof theNCRSGwere able to analyze and visualize how their uses were incorporated into various MPAnetworkproposalsbyusingMarineMap,amapping toolcreated to facilitate thedesignofMPAnetworksoftheMLPAI(MLPAI2011).TribesthathadrepresentativesontheNCRSGwereabletodirectlyvoicetheirconcernsandprovideinputthatwasusedinthedesignoftheproposedMPAs.

TheplanningprocessisdiscussedinfurtherdetailinSection6.6,“EnvironmentalJustice.”Atotal of 10 meetings were held in the north coast specifically for tribes, and all othermeetingswere open to the public, including tribes. SeeTable 6.6‐4 for a complete list ofmeetingsnear theStudyRegion.Thenorthcoast tribes,MLPAIstaff, theDepartment,andthe Commission worked together to find a solution to ensure that the Proposed Projectwouldnot affect thediverse and culturally important traditional tribal use andgatheringpractices taking place on ancestral territories throughout the north coast, through eitheravoidanceofidentifiedareasorinclusionoftakeallowancesthatwouldaccommodate(notimpede)tribalgatheringandharvest(MLPAI2010f).

TheSMRsandspecialclosureswouldrestrictthetribalmembers’abilitytoconducttribalpracticesinvolvingvaryingtypesoftake,aswellasnonconsumptivepracticesconductedinconjunction with practices involving take. However, as a result of the extensivecoordinationeffortdescribedabove,andthefactthatotherlocationswouldcontinuetobeavailable for such practices, the Commission considers this impact to be less thansignificant.


Impact CR‐4: Adverse Impacts on Traditional Cultural Properties and Activities Involving Take by Non‐Federally Recognized Tribes (Significance Criterion B) Section 6.6, “Environmental Justice,” describes populations of non‐federally recognizedtribesandtribalcommunitiesinthenorthcoast.Thesameconcernsandrationaleexistforthenon‐federallyrecognizedtribesasthoseexpressedinImpactCR‐3:AdverseImpactsonTraditional Cultural Properties and Activities Involving Take by Federally RecognizedTribes. However, the restrictions on consumptive tribal practices (and nonconsumptivepracticesconductedinconjunctionwiththesepractices)wouldbegreaterfornon‐federally



5-24


recognized tribes compared with federally recognized tribes because they would not beallowedtotakeinsideanyoftheMPAsbeyondtheallowablerecreationaltakeregulationsfor the general public. That said, owing to the extensive coordination effort with localcommunities described above, to avoid areas identified as important to tribes and tribalcommunities,andthefactthatotherlocationswouldcontinuetobeavailableforgathering,harvesting,andtakebynon‐federallyrecognizedtribes(almost87%oftheStudyRegion),theCommissionconsidersthisimpacttobelessthansignificant.


Impact CR‐5: Adverse Impacts on Nonconsumptive Tribal Practices (Significance Criterion B) AsdescribedaboveinImpactCR‐3:AdverseImpactsonTraditionalCulturalPropertiesandActivitiesInvolvingTakebyFederallyRecognizedTribes,areasofculturalworthfortribesofthenorthcoast includelocationsforreligiousandspiritualceremonies.Thisdiscussionevaluates potential adverse impacts on locations where federally recognized and non‐federallyrecognizedtribeshaveculturaltiesthatinvolvenonconsumptivepractices.

NoneoftheProposedMPAswouldrestrictaccess.Thespecialclosures,ontheotherhand,would prevent all people, including tribes, from accessing particular offshore rocks andislands.Thesearesmallareaswhereseveralendangeredorthreatenedspecies,orspeciesof special concern nest and breed (MLPAI 2010a). More details describing the rationalebehind the designation of these areas are listed in Table 4‐9 in Chapter 4, “BiologicalResources.”

Fourof thespecialclosureswouldbeclosed for6months(March throughAugust)of theyear:

FalseKlamathRock

SteamboatRock

RockportRocks

VizcainoRock

Threeofthespecialclosureswouldbeclosedyear‐round:

SouthwestSealRock

CastleRock

SugarloafIsland

With the exception of the special closures, no actions would be taken that would affectnonconsumptive tribal practices in any way (with the exception of those practices notcurrentlylegalunderstateorfederallaw,orthosepracticesperformedinconjunctionwithpractices involving take,asdescribedaboveunder ImpactsCR‐3andCR‐4).ThesespecialclosuresconstituteaverysmallportionoftheStudyRegion(0.02%)andarenotanticipatedto have a substantial adverse effect on nonconsumptive practices, such as religious and



5-25


spiritualceremonies.Asaresult,theCommissionconsidersthisimpacttononconsumptivetribalpracticestobelessthansignificant.


Impact CR‐6: Adverse Effects on Unique Archaeological Resources (Significance Criterion C) This impact discussion focuses on prehistoric and historic‐era archaeological resources,including archaeological resources of importance to tribes and tribal communities of thenorthcoast.Prehistoricarchaeological sitesmay includesubmergedhabitationsites, foodprocessing locations, and other artifacts. The Proposed Project is located in statewatersextending seaward from themean high‐tide line; it includes submerged lands aswell asoffshorerocksandislandsinstatewaters.Asnotedundersection5.3.1,“HistoricalSetting,”archaeologicalsurveyinformationforoffshorerocksandislandsisextremelylimitedowingtodifficultyofaccessandalackofdevelopment.Furthermore,asdescribedinImpactCR‐3,AdverseEffectsonTraditionalCulturalProperties,sometribesdonotdiscloseinformationregarding locations of their ancestral archaeological sites pursuant to California CodeSection 6254.10. Despite the limited amount of documentation regarding archaeologicalresourcesintheStudyRegion,thereareseveralexitingmanagementplansandregulationsinplacethatwouldnotconflictwithorbesupersededbytheProposedProject.

BLMcurrentlymanagesmanyoftheoffshorerocksandislandsintheStudyRegionthroughthe CCNM (see Section 6.1, “Land Use and Utilities,” for more information). BLM hasdevelopedpartnershipswithTrinidadRancheriaandYurokTribeinareaswhereoffshorerocksareknowntobepartoftribalancestralterritory(BLM2011).ThegoalsoftheCCNMalignwith thegoalsof theMLPA.Somearchaeological sitesmightbepresentonoffshorerocks and islands. Special closureswould restrict access for 6months out of the year atFalseKlamathRock,SteamboatRock,RockportRocks,andVizcainoRockandyear‐roundatSouthwestSealRock,CastleRock,andSugarloafIsland.Thespecialclosureswouldenhanceprotectionofarchaeologicalresourcesatthesesites.

FouroftheProposedMPAs(MacKerricherSMCA,PointCabrilloSMR,RussianGulchSMCA,and Van Damme SMCA) are currently designated as Underwater Parks andmanaged byState Parks (see also Section 6.1, “Land Use and Utilities,” for more information). Thepreservationof submerged lands isoneof theobjectivesbehind theestablishmentof theexisting underwater parks. The Proposed Project would not conflict with SLC goalsregarding the protection of submerged archaeological resources at these sites. TheProposedProjectwouldremovefromdesignationPuntaGordaSMR,wheretheremightbesomesubmergedarchaeologicalresources.However,twolargerSMRs(MattoleCanyonandSeaLionGulch)wouldflankeithersideoftheexistingSMR.

Although no archaeological sites have been documented within the proposed MPAs, theProposed Project would minimize the potential for fishing activity to accidently disturbunderwater archaeological resources, if they are present, resulting in protection ofsubmergedarchaeologicalresources.Ontheotherhand,asnotedinImpactCR‐1:AdverseEffects to Underwater Maritime‐related Historical Resources, there is a possibility thatdisplaced fishing effort might increase on the edges of MPAs and that nonconsumptiverecreational activity might increase within some areas of the Proposed Project. These



5-26


increases might lead to more disturbances to archaeological resources outside of MPAsfromfishingboatsandgearandinsideMPAsfromdiversandothernonconsumptiveusers.

TheOptional regulationswould alter the boundaries of someof theproposedMPAs. Theboundary extension for Pyramid Point SMCA, South Humboldt Bay State MarineRecreational Management Area, Sea Lion Gulch SMR, and Ten Mile Beach SMCA wouldenlarge the protected areas. On the other hand, the proposed Options for Reading RockOffshore, Big River Estuary, and Navarro River SMCAs would increase allowable take.Therefore, these Options would potentially result in more accidental damage from boatanchors or fishing gear to submerged archaeological resources than from the ProposedProject.

Current state law (PRC, Sections 6313 and 6314) prohibits all unauthorized salvage andremovalofartifacts fromsubmergedarchaeologicalsites instatewaters,whichareunderthejurisdictionofSLC.TheProposedProjectwouldnotmodifythisexistingstatelaw.TheProposedProjectwouldnotresultinconstructionordisturbanceoftheseafloororbottomsof bays or estuaries, would not directly disturb any archaeological resources, andwouldhavelimitedpotentialforindirectdisturbance.Therefore,theProposedProjectwouldhavealess‐than‐significantimpactsubmergedarchaeologicalresources.


Impact CR‐7: Adverse Impacts to Human Remains (Significance Criterion E) The Proposed Project does not include the disturbance of earth onshore or offshore, orotherwise in proximity to any known cemeteries or Native American burial grounds.However,thereispotentialforNativeAmericanremainstobelocatedinthewatersoftheProposedProjectowingtothelonghistoryoftribesinthenorthcoast.StatelawmakesthedisturbanceofNativeAmericanremainsa felony(PRC,Section5097.98;CaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode,Section7050.5).

AswithImpactCR‐1:AdverseEffectstoUnderwaterMaritime‐relatedHistoricalResourcesandCR‐4:AdverseEffectsonUniqueArchaeologicalResources,theProposedProjectwouldprotect the seafloor and any submerged human remains from damage by fishing gear insomeareas,butmightincreasenonconsumptiveboatinganddivinginthosesamelocations.Although the presence of human remains has not been documented in the areas of theproposedspecialclosures,theseareaswouldprovidemoreextensiveprotectionforhumanremainsiftheyarepresent,especiallythosespecialclosuresthatareclosedtoaccessyear‐round (Southwest SealRock,CastleRock, andSugarloaf Island).OneexistingSMR (PuntaGorda)wouldberemoved,buttwootherswouldreplace it(MattoleCanyonandSeaLionGulch).TheProposedProjectwouldnothaveadverseimpactsonhumanremains.

Level of Significance: No Adverse Impact

NorthCoastEIR 0130 Mar - California

Documents

Transcript of NorthCoastEIR 0130 Mar - California