Agenda packet, regular meeting, fourth session — Citrus Heights City Council Meetings, July 8, 2026 (part 4 of 5)

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, A. L. Zimmerman, and B. R. Euliss. 1999 (revised 2002). Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Ferruginous hawk.

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 23 pages.

Gervais, J. A., Rosenberg, D. K., and Anthony, R. G. 2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk of male Burrowing Owls in an agricultural landscape. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 67:156–165.

Nafis, G. 2025. California Herps - A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California.

Available at: http://www.californiaherps.com/.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016. California Central Valley Steelhead Distinct Population Segment: 5-year Review. California Central Valley Area Office.

Nial K.R., Drizd, L. and Voorhies K.J. 2019. Butterflies Across the Globe: A Synthesis of the Current Status and Characteristics of Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Populations Worldwide. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7:362. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2019.00362
Richmond, O.W., Chen, S.K., Risk, B.B., Tecklin, J., and S. R. Beissinger. 2010. California Black Rails Depend on Irrigation-fed Wetlands in the Sierra Nevada Foothills. California Agriculture: Volume 2, Number 2.

Shuford, W.D., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

ITEM 10
Appendix D: Potential for Special-status Species in the Region to Occur in the Study Area for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 B-15
Spautz, Hildie; Nur, Nadav; Stralberg, Diana. 2005. California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) Distribution and Abundance in Relation to Habitat and Landscape Features in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. In: Ralph, C. John; Rich, Terrell D., editors 2005. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-191. Albany, CA: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: p. 465-468
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report. V2.1 96 pp + appendices.
2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol.

I-III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

ITEM 10
Appendix C
Plant and Wildlife Species Observed
in the Study Area
ITEM 10
Appendix C: Plant and Wildlife Species Observed in the Study Area | May 2026 C-1
Plant Species Observed
Family Scientific Name Common Name
Native
Alismataceae Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford’s arrowhead
Asteraceae Artemisia douglasiana California mugwort
Cyperaceae Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge
Fabaceae Acmispon americanus Spanish lotus
Fagaceae Quercuslobata valley oak
Quercus wislizeni interior live oak
Juncaceae Juncus mexicanus Mexican rush
Lauraceae Umbellularia californica California bay
Oleaceae Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash
Onagraceae Epilobium brachycarpum annual fireweed
Salicaceae Populusfremontii Fremont cottonwood
Non-native
Alliaceae Allium neapolitanum white garlic
Apiaceae Torilis arvensis field hedge parsley
Apocynaceae Vinca minor common periwinkle
Araliaceae Hedera helix English ivy
Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm
Asteraceae Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle
Centaurea solstitialis yellow star-thistle
Cichorium intybus chicory
Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort
Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce
Taraxacum officinale common dandelion
Bignoniaceae Catalpa speciosa northern catalpa
Brassicaceae Brassica nigra black mustard
Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd’s purse
Ericaceae Rhododendron sp. rhododendron
Fabaceae Albizia julibrissin silk tree
Vicia villosa hairy vetch
Trifolium hirtum rose clover
Geraniaceae Erodium botrys storksbill
Geranium dissectum cutleaf geranium
Juglandaceae Juglanssp. walnut
Lamiaceae Mentha pulegium pennyroyal
Malvaceae Malva parviflora cheeseweed mallow
Moraceae Ficus carica common fig
Myrsinaceae Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel
Oleaceae Ligustrum lucidum Chinese privet
Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca americana American pokeweed
Plantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata English plantain
Platanaceae Platanus × acerifolia London planetree
Poaceae Avena fatua wild oat
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome
Bromus hordeaceus soft brome
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass
Cynosurus echinatus dogtail grass
Elymus caput-medusae medusahead
ITEM 10
Appendix C: Plant and Wildlife Species Observed in the Study Area | May 2026 C-2
Family Scientific Name Common Name
Poaceae (cont.) Festuca perennis Italian ryegrass
Hordeum murinum barley
Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass
Phalaris aquatica canary grass
Sorghum halepense johnsongrass
Polygonaceae Rumex crispus curly dock
Rosaceae Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Simaroubaceae Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven
Ulmaceae Ulmussp. elm
ITEM 10
Appendix C: Plant and Wildlife Species Observed in the Study Area | May 2026 C-3
Wildlife Species Observed
Family Scientific Name Common Name
Birds
Anatidae Anas platyrhynchos Mallard
Ardeidae Ardea alba Great egret
Columbidae Columba livia Rock pigeon
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
Corvidae Aphelocoma californica California scrub-jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Fringillidae Haemorhous mexicanus House finch
Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch
Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird
Paridae Baeolophus inornatus Oak titmouse
Parulidae Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped warbler
Passerellidae Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed junco
Melozone crissalis California towhee
Pipilo maculatus Spotted towhee
Passeridae Passer domesticus House sparrow
Phasianidae Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey
Picidae Colaptes auratus Northern flicker
Melanerpes formicivorus Acorn woodpecker
Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris European starling
Trochilidae Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Turdidae Catharus guttatus Hermit thrush
Sialia mexicana Western bluebird
Turdus migratorius American robin
Tyrannidae Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe
Mammals
Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus columbianus Black-tailed deer Procyonidae Procyon lotor Raccoon
ITEM 10
Appendix D
Representative Site Photographs
ITEM 10
W:\PROJECTS\C\CWECorp_04339\00027_CWEMSA2025-2028\001_CitrusHeightsCrkErosionBridgeScour\Reports\BRA\Appendices\App D_Photos Representative Photographs
Appendix D
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Photo 1. Representative view of the Study Area at the Indian River Drive crossing; facing northeast. Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 2. View of the Indian River Drive crossing on the southern bank of Arcade Creek; facing east. Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 4. Arcade Creek upstream of the Indian River Drive crossing; facing south.

Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 6. Bank of Arcade Creek at the Indian River Drive crossing with Tree #12 in the foreground; facing south. Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 8. Ephemeral drainage at the Indian River Drive crossing; facing southwest. Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 10. Representative view of the Matheny Way crossing; facing east.

Photo taken 7/10/2025.

ITEM 10
W:\PROJECTS\C\CWECorp_04339\00027_CWEMSA2025-2028\001_CitrusHeightsCrkErosionBridgeScour\Reports\BRA\Appendices\App D_Photos Representative Photographs
Appendix D
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Photo 11. Representative view of the Matheny Way crossing with Tree #9 and Tree #10 on the left side of the photo; facing west. Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 12. View of Arcade Creek with the Matheny Way crossing in the background; facing east. Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 14. View of Arcade Creek east of the Matheny Way crossing; facing north.

Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 16. View of Arcade Creek and the surrounding valley oak woodland from the Matheny Way crossing; facing east. Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 18. View of the Arcade-Cripple Creek Trail crossing; facing west. Photo taken 7/10/2025.

ITEM 10
W:\PROJECTS\C\CWECorp_04339\00027_CWEMSA2025-2028\001_CitrusHeightsCrkErosionBridgeScour\Reports\BRA\Appendices\App D_Photos Representative Photographs
Appendix D
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Photo 19. Arcade Creek east of the Arcade-Cripple Creek Trail crossing; facing east. Photo taken 7/10/2025
Photo 20. Arcade Creek west of the Arcade-Cripple Creek Trail crossing with ruderal/disturbed habitat within the transmission line right-of-way on the opposite bank; facing west. Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 22. Ephemeral drainage within the Arcade-Cripple Creek Trail crossing Study Area; facing south. Photo taken 7/10/2025.

Photo 24. Disturbed habitat abutting Cripple Creek and Tree #18 at the Patton Avenue crossing; facing north. Photo taken 12/4/2025.

Photo 26. Sanford’s arrowhead observed in the bed of Cripple Creek near the crossing; facing west. Photo taken 12/4/2025.

ITEM 10
Appendix D
Cultural Resources Assessment
ITEM 10
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and
Bridge Scour Protection Project
Cultural Resources Assessment
May 2026 | 04339.00027.001
Prepared for:

City of Citrus Heights
6360 Fountain Square Drive
Citrus Heights, CA 95621
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1108 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
ITEM 10
This page intentionally left blank
ITEM 10
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION........................................................................................... 1

2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

2.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1

2.2.1 Indian River Bridge................................................................................................. 2

2.2.2 Matheny Bridge ..................................................................................................... 2

2.2.3 Sundance Bridge .................................................................................................... 2

2.2.4 Patton Bridge ......................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Area of Potential Effects..................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Personnel ............................................................................................................................ 3

3.0 CULTURAL SETTING.......................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Precontact........................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Ethnography........................................................................................................................ 6

3.3 History ................................................................................................................................. 7

4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK............................................................................................................. 8

4.1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470)................................................... 8

4.1.1 Section 106 ............................................................................................................ 8

4.1.2 National Register of Historic Places....................................................................... 9

4.2 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................... 10

4.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources.......................................................... 11

4.3 California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 ...................................................................... 12

4.4 California Public Resources Code §5097.98...................................................................... 12

4.5 City of Citrus Heights General Plan................................................................................... 12

5.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH.............................................................................................................. 14

5.1 CHRIS RECORDS SEARCH................................................................................................... 14

5.1.1 Previous Studies................................................................................................... 14

5.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources........................................................................... 16

5.1.3 Caltrans Bridge Survey......................................................................................... 17

5.2 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search.................................... 17

6.0 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY...................................................................................................................... 17

6.1 Survey Methods................................................................................................................ 17

6.2 Survey Results................................................................................................................... 17

6.2.1 Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge Study Area .......................................... 17

6.2.2 Sundance Bridge Study Area................................................................................ 18

6.2.3 Patton Bridge Study Area..................................................................................... 18 ITEM 10
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page

7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................... 19

7.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 19

7.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................ 19

7.2.1 Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources ........................................................ 19

7.2.2 Accidental Discovery of Human Remains............................................................ 20

8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 21

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Previous Studies Conducted Within 0.5 Mile of the APE............................................................... 14 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5 Mile of the APE............................................16

LIST OF APPENDICES
A Figures
B Representative Survey Photographs
ITEM 10
iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
APE Area of Potential Effects
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHL California Historical Landmark
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System City City of Citrus Heights
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
County Sacramento County
CRA Cultural Resources Assessment
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CCTS Central California Taxonomic System
CSU California State University
HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

IS/MND Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
MLD Most Likely Descendant
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCIC North Central Information Center
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NPS National Park Service
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PRC Public Resources Code
project Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project RPA Registered Professional Archaeologist
sf square feet
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
ITEM 10
iv
This page intentionally left blank
ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the findings of a Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) completed by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the proposed Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project (project) located in the City of Citrus Heights (City) in Sacramento County, California.

The project would include the installation of scour and erosion protection measures, including creek channel and slope stabilization, underneath the Indian River Drive Bridge (Indian River Bridge), Matheny Way Bridge (Matheny Bridge), Arcade-Cripple Creek Trail Bridge (Sundance Bridge), and Patton Avenue Bridge (Patton Bridge). The project would also include the removal of an abandoned Consolidated Communications, Inc. and Comcast joint trench with exposed conduits in the creek bed near the Indian River Bridge, and would include the relocation of existing and exposed Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) inactive and active gas lines near the Matheny Bridge. The project work would occur where natural erosion is impacting existing public infrastructure and inhibiting City maintenance activities.

The project is proposed to extend the service life of the bridges, maintain public safety, protect critical infrastructure, and reduce long-term maintenance needs. The City is required to submit a cultural resources assessment to ensure compliance with State and local laws and regulations as they relate to cultural resources, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project may also qualify as an undertaking subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the anticipated Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and this CRA is also intended to fulfill the requirements of the NHPA.

A records search of the project’s Areas of Potential Effects (APE) and a 0.5-mile radius identified 28 previous cultural resource studies, including six that included or intersected the APE. The records search also identified six cultural resources within the search radius, although none of the resources are located within the APE itself. These are dominated by historic-era buildings and include one precontact lithic scatter.

HELIX archaeologists conducted pedestrian surveys of the entirety of the APE. Ground visibility was generally poor during the surveys (i.e., less than 15 percent of the ground surface was visible). No precontact or historic-era cultural resources were found during the surveys.

Based on the results of this CRA, HELIX recommends implementation of measures to address the accidental discovery of cultural resources and/or human remains during project activities (see Section

7.2, Recommendations). HELIX concludes that, with the implementation of these recommendations, the following findings are appropriate for the project:
• No Significant Impact on Historical or Unique Archaeological Resources under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
• No Significant Impact to Human Remains resulting from disturbance; and • No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties under Section 106 (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800.5[a]).

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 ES-2
No additional study or documentation for cultural resources are recommended at this time. However, in the unlikely event that archaeological cultural resources, and/or human remains, or funerary objects are discovered during project construction, the provisions contained in Section 7.2 of this report should be implemented to avoid or substantially reduce the severity of impacts to such finds.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) addresses the proposed Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project (herein referred to as the “proposed project” or “project”) located in the City of Citrus Heights (City) in Sacramento County (County), California. The project would include the installation of scour and erosion protection measures, including creek channel and slope stabilization, underneath the Indian River Drive Bridge (Indian River Bridge), the Matheny Way Bridge (Matheny Bridge), the Arcade-Cripple Creek Trail Bridge (Sundance Bridge), and the Patton Avenue Bridge (Patton Bridge).

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is being prepared to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that State and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before they approve or implement those projects. The project may also qualify as an undertaking subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the anticipated Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Therefore, this CRA, which has been prepared to identify cultural resources and/or human remains that may be subject to impact or disturbance as a result of project implementation, is intended to satisfy the requirements of both CEQA and NHPA.

2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site comprises three noncontiguous locations, or study areas, in the City of Citrus Heights:
the Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge cross Arcade Creek share a study area just north of Greenback Lane; the Sundance Bridge also crosses Arcade Creek, and its study area is located east of Fair Oaks Boulevard on the Arcade-Cripple Creek Trail in the Sundance Natural Area; and the Patton Bridge crosses Cripple Creek, and its study area is located just south of Twin Oaks Avenue. The Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge study area is located within Section 33, Township 10 North, Range 6 East; the Sundance Bridge study area is located within Section 30, Township 10 North, Range 7 East; and the Patton Bridge study area is located within Section 13, Township 10 North, Range 6 East. All three project site locations are depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Citrus Heights 7.5-minute quadrangle. See Figure 1, Site and Vicinity Map, for the project vicinity map and Figures 2a through 2c, Indian River Drive and Matheny Way Area of Potential Effects, Sundance Bridge Area of Potential Effects, and Patton Bridge Area of Potential Effects, respectively, for aerial maps (all figures are included as Appendix A, Figures).

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project would include the installation of scour and erosion protection measures, including creek channel and slope stabilization, underneath Indian River Bridge, Matheny Bridge, Sundance Bridge, and Patton Bridge. The project work would occur where natural erosion is impacting existing public infrastructure and inhibiting City maintenance activities. The project is proposed to extend the service life of the bridges, maintain public safety, protect critical infrastructure, and reduce long-term ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 2 maintenance needs. A detailed description of proposed project activities at each project impact area is outlined below.

2.2.1 Indian River Bridge
Project activities at the Indian River Bridge project impact area would include the installation of rock slope protection in the creek bed. The project would place rock slope protection in the form of Class IV1 stones used as rip rap on top of filter fabric or on top of at least a 6-inch thick layer of sand and gravel.

Smooth foundation would be placed underneath the filter. Rip rap would be placed on the creek bed and on the embankments of Arcade Creek from the existing rip rap to the edge of the abutment walls.

The total project impact area at Indian River Bridge would be 0.27 acre.

The project would also include the removal of an abandoned Consolidated Communications and Comcast joint trench with exposed conduits in the creek bed. The proposed project would include slope restoration on the west, or downstream, side of the abandoned joint trench.

The Indian River Bridge study area would be accessed from Indian River Drive. Tree removal is anticipated for the proposed project activities at the Indian River Bridge.

2.2.2 Matheny Bridge
Project activities at the Matheny Bridge project impact area would include the installation of rock slope protection in the creek bed. The project would place rock slope protection in the form of Class I2 , II3, or
IV stones used as rip rap on top of filter fabric or on top of at least a 6-inch thick layer of sand and gravel. Smooth foundation would be placed underneath the filter. Rip rap would be placed on the creek bed and on the embankments of Arcade Creek from the existing rip rap to the edge of the abutment walls. The total project impact area at Matheny Bridge would be 0.14 acre.

The proposed project activities would require the coordination with Pacific Gas and Electric and the City to relocate existing exposed inactive and active gas lines.

The Matheny Bridge study area would be accessed from Matheny Way. Tree removal is anticipated for the proposed project activities at the Matheny Bridge.

2.2.3 Sundance Bridge
Project activities at the Sundance Bridge project impact area would include the installation of rock slope protection in the creek bed. The project would place rock slope protection in the form of Class I or II stones used as rip rap on top of filter fabric or on top of at least a 6-inch thick layer of sand and gravel. 1 Class IV stones refer to 300 pound weighted rocks, as designated by Caltrans Rock Slope Protection (RSP) Guidelines. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/f0002770-2016- 07-15-implementation-of-rsp-design-a11y.pdf. 2 Class I stones refer to 20 pound weighted rocks, as designated by Caltrans Rock Slope Protection (RSP) Guidelines. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/f0002770-2016- 07-15-implementation-of-rsp-design-a11y.pdf. 3 Class II stones refer to 60 pound weighted rocks, as designated by Caltrans Rock Slope Protection (RSP) Guidelines. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/f0002770-2016- 07-15-implementation-of-rsp-design-a11y.pdf.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 3 Smooth foundation would be placed underneath the filter. Rip rap would be placed on the creek bed and on the embankments of Arcade Creek from the existing rip rap to the edge of the abutment walls.

The total project impact area at Sundance Bridge would be 0.04 acre. The Sundance Bridge project impact area would be accessed from the existing trail in Sundance Park. Tree removal is not anticipated for the proposed project activities at Sundance Bridge.

2.2.4 Patton Bridge
Project activities at the Patton Bridge project impact area would include the installation of rock slope protection in the creek bed. The project would grade the existing conditions to expose three encompassed existing piers adjacent to the right abutment and fill the existing erosion on the left abutment. The project would also grade the slope of the embankments and place Class I or II stones as rip rap along the embankments and channel bed. The soil would be replaced with Class IV stones used as rip rap and placed on top of filter fabric or on top of at least a 6-inch thick layer of sand and gravel.

The total project impact area at Patton Bridge would be 0.12 acre.

The Patton Bridge study area would be accessed from Patton Avenue. Tree removal is not anticipated for the proposed project activities at Patton Bridge.

2.3 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined as the geographic area within which project activities may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.

For the purposes of this CRA, the APE corresponds to the three discrete study areas described in Chapter

2.0 above, although actual project impact areas would be limited to smaller areas within each study area. APE maps showing the study area and impact area boundaries are provided as Figures 2a through 2c:
• Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge: The study area that includes these two bridges measures 11.12 acres, including a 0.27-acre project impact area for the Indian River Drive Bridge and a 0.14-acre project impact area for the Matheny Way Bridge. • Sundance Bridge: The study area measures 4.45 acres, including a 0.04-acre project impact area. • Patton Bridge: The study area measures 1.19 acres, including a 0.12-acre project impact area.

All construction staging would be contained within the project impact areas, which, when combined, is approximately 0.43 acre. The vertical extent of the APE has not yet been determined but is expected to extend to no more than 26 inches below the current ground surface. The only exception is at the Indian River Bridge, where the plunge pool will extend to a maximum depth of 86 inches.

2.4 PERSONNEL
This CRA was conducted and written by HELIX Senior Cultural Resources Project Manager, Clarus Backes, M.A., RPA. Mr. Backes meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61) and is a cultural resources project manager ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 4 with 26 years of professional experience throughout California. He has overseen numerous projects for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and CEQA. Fieldwork for this CRA was conducted by Mr.

Backes and HELIX staff archaeologist Leah Wargo, M.A., RPA.

3.0 CULTURAL SETTING
The following is a brief overview of the prehistoric and historic background that provides context within which to understand the background and significance of sites found in the general vicinity of the project site. This section is not intended to be a comprehensive review of current research in the area but instead serves as a generalized overview. Descriptions that are more detailed can be found in ethnographic studies, mission records, and major published sources, including Kroeber (1925), Wallace (1955), Warren (1968), Wilson and Towne (1978), Moratto (1984), and Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984).

3.1 PRECONTACT
Early archaeological investigations in central California were conducted at sites located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. The first published account documents investigations in the Lodi and Stockton area (Schenck and Dawson 1929). The initial archaeological reports were typically limited to descriptive narratives, although more systematic approaches were sponsored by Sacramento Junior College in the 1930s. At the same time, the University of California at Berkeley excavated several sites in the lower Sacramento Valley and Delta region, which revealed archaeological site patterns based on variations of inter-site assemblages. Research during the 1930s identified temporal periods in central California prehistory and provided an initial chronological sequence (Lillard and Purves 1936; Lillard et al. 1939). In 1939, Lillard noted that each cultural period led directly to the next and that influences spread from the Delta region to other regions in central California (Lillard et al. 1939). In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Beardsley (1948, 1954) documented similarities in artifacts between sites in the San Francisco Bay region and the Delta and refined his findings into a cultural model that ultimately became known as the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS). This system proposed a uniform, linear sequence of cultural succession. The CCTS system was challenged by Gerow (1954, 1974; Gerow with Force 1968), whose work looked at radiocarbon dating to show that Early and Middle Horizon sites were not subsequent developments but, at least partially, contemporaneous.

To address some of the flaws in the CCTS system, Fredrickson (1973) introduced a revision that incorporated a system of spatial and cultural integrative units. Fredrickson separated cultural, temporal, and spatial units from each other and assigned them to six chronological periods: Paleo-Indian (10000 to 6000 B.C.); Lower Middle and Upper Archaic (6000 B.C. to A.D. 500); and Emergent (Upper and Lower, A.D. 500 to 1800). The suggested temporal ranges are similar to earlier horizons, which are broad cultural units that can be arranged in a temporal sequence (Moratto 1984). In addition, Fredrickson defined several patterns, which are a general way of life shared within a specific geographical region.

These patterns include:
• Windmiller Pattern or Early Horizon (3000 to 1000 B.C.) • Berkeley Pattern or Middle Horizon (1000 B.C. to A.D. 500) • Augustine Pattern or Late Horizon (A.D. 500 to historic period) ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 5 Brief descriptions of these temporal ranges and their unique characteristics follow.

Windmiller Pattern or Early Horizon (3000 to 1000 B.C.) Characterized by the Windmiller Pattern, the Early Horizon was centered in the Cosumnes district of the Delta and emphasized hunting rather than gathering, as evidenced by the abundance of projectile points in relation to plant processing tools. Additionally, atlatl, dart, and spear technologies typically included stemmed projectile points of slate and chert but minimal obsidian. The large variety of projectile point types and faunal remains suggests exploitation of a variety of terrestrial and aquatic species (Bennyhoff 1950; Ragir 1972). Burials occurred in cemeteries and intra-village graves. These burials typically were ventrally extended and contain a high number of grave goods, although some dorsal extensions with a westerly orientation are also known. Trade networks focused on the acquisition of ornamental and ceremonial objects in finished form rather than on raw material. The presence of artifacts made of exotic materials such as quartz, obsidian, and shell indicates an extensive trade network that may represent the arrival of Utian populations into central California. Also indicative of this period are rectangular Haliotis and Olivella shell beads and charmstones that were usually perforated.

Berkeley Pattern or Middle Horizon (1000 B.C. to A.D. 500) The Middle Horizon is characterized by the Berkeley Pattern, which displays considerable changes from the Early Horizon. This period exhibited a strong milling technology represented by minimally shaped cobble mortars and pestles, although metates and manos were still used. Dart and atlatl technologies during this period were characterized by non-stemmed projectile points made primarily of obsidian.

Fredrickson (1973) suggests that the Berkeley Pattern marked the eastward expansion of Miwok groups from the San Francisco Bay Area. Compared with the Early Horizon, there is a higher proportion of grinding implements at this time, implying an emphasis on plant resources rather than on hunting.

Typical burials were in flexed positions with variable cardinal orientation and included some cremations.

As noted by Lillard, the practice of spreading ground ochre over the burial was common at this time (Lillard et al. 1939). Grave goods during this period are generally sparse and typically include only utilitarian items and a few ornamental objects. However, objects such as charmstones, quartz crystals, and bone whistles occasionally were present, which suggests the economic or ceremonial significance of the individual (Hughes 1994). During this period, larger populations are indicated by the number and depth of sites compared with the Windmiller Pattern. According to Fredrickson (1973), the Berkeley Pattern reflects gradual expansion or assimilation of different populations, with a gradual shift in economic emphasis, rather than abrupt population replacement.

Augustine Pattern or Late Horizon (A.D. 500 to historic period) The Late Horizon is characterized by the Augustine Pattern, which represents a further shift in the general subsistence pattern. Changes include the introduction of bow and arrow technology, with acorns becoming the predominant food resource. Trade systems expanded to include raw resources as well as finished products. The Augustine Pattern is also marked by an increase in baked clay artifacts and extensive use of elaborately shaped Haliotis ornaments. Burial patterns retained the use of flexed burials with variable orientation, but there was a reduction in the use of ochre and widespread evidence of cremation (Moratto 1984). Judging from the number and types of grave goods associated with the two types of burials, cremation seems to have been reserved for individuals of higher status, whereas other individuals were buried in flexed positions. Johnson (1976) suggests that the Augustine Pattern represents the expansion of the Wintuan population from the north, which resulted in combining new traits with those established during the Berkeley Pattern.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 6 Central California research has expanded from an emphasis on defining chronological and cultural units to a more comprehensive look at settlement and subsistence systems. This shift is illustrated by the early use of burials to identify mortuary assemblages and more recent research using osteological data to determine the health of prehistoric populations (Dickel et al. 1984). Although debate continues over a single model or sequence for central California, the general framework consisting of three temporal/cultural units is generally accepted, although the identification of regional and local variation is a major goal of current archaeological research.

3.2 ETHNOGRAPHY
At the time of European contact, the project vicinity was occupied by the Southern Maidu (alternatively known as Nisenan), who were identified by their language, which is a subgroup of the California Penutian linguistic family. The Maidu are divided, mainly on dialectic grounds, into the Southern Maidu (living within the American River drainage plus parts of the Bear, Cosumnes, and Yuba rivers), the Northeastern Maidu (on the upper reaches of the North and Middle Forks of Feather River), and the Northwestern Maidu (below the foothills of the Sierra Nevada where the south, middle, north, and west branches of Feather River converge and on upper Butte and Chico creeks as well as parts of the Sacramento Valley). The Southern Maidu villages ranged in population from 15 to 25 people, with the tribal centers averaging more than 500 people. Large settlements consisted of one major village with associated smaller, seasonal camps. Villages were typically located on ridges above major streams and rivers and were inhabited mainly in the winter months. During the hot summer months, the Southern Maidu moved to cooler temporary camps in higher elevations.

The local environment provided abundant food sources, with seasonal gathering conducted mainly by women and children. Hunting and fishing, primarily conducted by the men, were year-round pursuits but were most successful in the late summer and early fall. The Southern Maidu had few contacts outside their immediate tribal territory, and those contacts were limited to warfare, trade, and ceremonial gatherings. Villages were led by a headman or advisor, but each extended family had a leader who assisted the village headman. Some of the headsman’s duties included advising the people in general, preventing them from trespassing, directing ceremonies and festivities, arbitrating disputes, and leading the village in times of warfare. Typically, the dead were cremated along with their property, and their dwelling was either moved or destroyed.

The Maidu practiced a religion called Kuksu, which was widespread among California Native Americans and appeared in various forms. Ceremonies were typically conducted in the semi–subterranean dance houses that were centrally located within each village. A ceremony celebrated annually in the fall was the mourning ceremony that honored ancient ancestors as well as the individuals who had died during the year.

Early contact with the Spanish was limited to the southern edge of the Southern Maidu territory, with most early accounts resulting from early penetrations of the Spanish into the Plains Miwok territory.

During the late 18th century, systematic removal to the missions and resistance by the Miwok occurred along the southern border of Maidu territory. No records exist of the Maidu being removed to the missions. However, the Maidu did receive missionized Native Americans into their territory, as well as displaced Miwok villagers on their southern borders (Wilson and Towne 1978:387–97).

In 1833, a massive epidemic, believed to have been malaria, swept through the Sacramento Valley (Cook 1955). The exact number of casualties is unknown, but it is estimated that 75 percent of the Maidu ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 7 population was killed, leaving only a fraction of the original number to face the intruding miners and settlers that arrived when gold was discovered in Coloma in 1848.

3.3 HISTORY
The first Europeans to visit the interior of California were Spanish expeditions launched to recapture Native Americans who had escaped from the rule of coastal missions (Heizer and Almquist 1971, Napton 1997:6). Catholic missions were the hallmark of the Spanish Period (1796-1822) in California, during which time 21 missions were established by the Franciscan Order along the coast between San Diego (among the earliest of missions) and San Francisco. Among the first Europeans to formally explore the Central Valley was Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga, who led excursions in the area between 1806 and 1808 to examine the area’s main waterways, including what we today call the American, Calaveras, Cosumnes, Feather, Merced, Mokelumne, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus rivers. In 1813, Moraga again ventured into the Central Valley, this time focusing on the south, and coined the name of the San Joaquin River (Hoover et al. 2002:369). Luis Arguello led the last of the Spanish expeditions into the Central Valley in 1817 when he traveled up the Sacramento River, past current-day Sacramento, and into the mouth of the Feather River before turning back to the coast (Beck and Haase 1974:18, 20; Grunsky 1989:3-4).

The most drastic and permanent change to the Native Americans’ way of life came with the establishment of the Spanish Mission system. By the early 1800s, the mission fathers began a process of cultural change that brought the majority of the local Native Americans into the missions, although the Maidu, especially the ones living in the mountain regions, were not as affected as the Native Americans living in the coastal regions near the missions. At the expense of traditional skills, the neophytes were taught the pastoral and horticultural skills of the Hispanic tradition. Spanish missionaries traveled into the Valley to recapture escaped neophytes and recruit inland Native Americans for the coastal missions.

In 1834, the Mission system was officially secularized, and the majority of the mission Native American population dispersed to local ranches, villages, or nearby pueblos (Kroeber 1925). Soon after the establishment of the mission system, a process of granting large parcels of land to prominent individuals began. Within a few years, ranchos occupied large tracts in the vicinity of the missions, and a pastoral economy involving the missions, the ranchos, and native inhabitants was established (Kyle et al. 1990).

With the declaration of Mexican independence in 1821, Spanish control of Alta California ended, although little change actually occurred. Political change did not take place until mission secularization in 1834, when Native Americans were released from missionary control, and the mission lands were granted to private individuals. Shoup and Milliken (1999) state that mission secularization removed the social protection and support on which Native Americans had come to rely. It exposed them to further exploitation by outside interests, often forcing them into a marginal existence as laborers for large ranchos. Following mission secularization, the Mexican population grew as the native population continued to decline. European–American settlers began to arrive in Alta California during this period and often married into Mexican families in order to become Mexican citizens who were eligible to receive land grants. In 1846, on the eve of the U.S.–Mexican War (1846 to 1848), the estimated population of Alta California was 8,000 non–natives and 10,000 natives. However, these estimates have been debated - Cook (1976) suggests the Native American population was 100,000 in 1850; the U.S.

Census of 1880 reported the Native American population as 20,385.

Settlement of the Sacramento area began in the late 1830s and early 1840s, when entrepreneurs such as John Sutter and Jared Sheldon obtained land grants from the Mexican government in exchange for an ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 8 agreement to protect Mexican interests in these remote regions. In 1839, John Sutter built the earliest Euro-American settlement within Sacramento County. Named Sutter’s Fort, it was a well-known outpost that brought with it an increase in Euro-American trappers, hunters, and settlers to the Sacramento area. John Sutter also founded New Helvetia, a trading and agricultural outfit, which was based out of Sutter’s Fort, close to the location where the Sacramento and American rivers split, near today’s City of Sacramento (Hoover et al. 2002).

The Mexican period was also characterized by the exploration of the western Sierra Nevada mountain range by American fur trappers and later, miners. Jedediah Smith, an American trapper, is known to have explored the Sierra Nevada in 1826 and 1827, entering the Sacramento Valley and traveling along the American and Cosumnes rivers and through the San Joaquin Valley. Soon after, other trappers ventured into the area, including those involved with the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1832 (Hoover et al. 2002:370). Colonel J. Warner is also known to have traveled with the Ewing-Young trapping expedition, which passed through the Central Valley in 1832 and 1833 (Gilbert 1879:11).

The American period in California began in 1848 with the end of the Mexican-American War (1846 – 1848), and the ensuing Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which officially made California a territory of the United States. Soon after, gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill, located along the American River in Coloma. By 1849, over 80,000 people had emigrated to try to stake their claims and strike it rich in the California Gold Rush. Due to this population boom, and the industries that popped up as a result, California was made the 31st state of the United States in 1850, and by 1854, the bustling town of Sacramento was made the state capital.

4.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

4.1 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 (16 USC 470) The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 United States Code [USC] 470), enacted in 1966, declared a national policy of historic preservation and instituted a multifaceted program, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, to encourage the achievement of preservation goals at the federal, state, and local levels. The NHPA authorized the expansion and maintenance of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), established the position of State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and provided for the designation of State Review Boards, set up a mechanism to certify local governments to carry out the purposes of the NHPA, assisted Native American tribes in preserving their cultural heritage, and created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

4.1.1 Section 106
Section 106 of the NHPA states that federal agencies with direct or indirect jurisdiction over federally funded, assisted, or licensed undertakings must take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and that the ACHP must be afforded an opportunity to comment on such undertakings through a process outlined in 36 CFR Part 800. The Section 106 process involves the identification of historic properties within the APE, the determination of whether the undertaking will cause an adverse effect on historic properties, and the resolution of those adverse effects through consultation with parties to the Section 106 review process, most prominently including the California SHPO and Native American tribes.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 9 4.1.2 National Register of Historic Places
The National Register was authorized by Section 101 of the NHPA as the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Properties listed in the National Register consist of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register are considered in planning and environmental review, and effects to such properties are primarily addressed under Section 106.

The criteria for determining a resource’s eligibility for National Register listing are defined at 36 CFR Part

60.4 and are as follows:
… the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and A) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Under Criteria A, B, and C, the National Register places an emphasis on a resource appearing as it did during its period of significance to convey historical significance; under Criterion D, properties convey significance through the information they contain.

National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation states that in order for a property to qualify for listing in the National Register, it must meet at least one of the National Register criteria by (1) being associated with an important historic context, and (2) retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance (National Park Service 1997). The historic context of a resource will define the theme(s), geographical limits, and period of significance by which to evaluate a resource’s significance (National Park Service 1997:7).

Generally, cultural properties must be 50 years of age or more to be eligible for listing in the National Register. According to the National Park Service (1997:2), “properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible” unless such properties are “of exceptional importance.”

4.1.2.1 Historic Integrity
In addition to meeting one or more of the significance criteria, a cultural resource must retain its historic integrity to be considered eligible for listing in the National Register. Historic integrity is defined as the ability of a resource to convey its significance. The evaluation of integrity must be grounded in an understanding of a resource’s physical features and its environment, and how these relate to its significance. “The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 10 significance” (National Park Service 1997:44). There are seven aspects of integrity to consider when evaluating a cultural resource: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (National Park Service 1997:44-45).
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. • Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. Physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including topographic features, vegetation, paths or fences, or relationships between buildings and other features or open space. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of the artisan’s labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site.
• Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

For archaeological resources, the term “integrity” is used to describe the level of preservation or quality of information contained within a district, site, or excavated assemblage. Integrity is relative to the specific significance that the resource conveys. Although it is possible to correlate the seven aspects of integrity with standard archaeological site characteristics, those aspects are often unclear for evaluating the ability of an archaeological resource to convey significance under Criterion D. Under Criterion D, the integrity of archaeological resources is judged according to the ability of the site to yield scientific and cultural information that can be used to address important research questions (Little et al. 2000:35-42).

4.1.2.2 Eligibility
Resources that have a significant association with an important historic context, meet the age guidelines, and possess integrity will generally be considered eligible for listing in the National Register.

4.2 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with state guidelines, are ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 11 also considered historic resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR, or is not included in a local register or survey, shall not preclude a Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA, from determining that the resource may be a historic resource as defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1.7.

CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the historic or precontact archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a historical resource, or (2) the historic or precontact archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria (PRC § 21083.2[g]):

1. The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically-recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

4.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC § 5024.1[a]). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Historical Landmarks (CHL), numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historic resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs, may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR.

A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria (PRC § 5024.1[c]):

Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.

Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 12 Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible that a resource whose integrity does not satisfy NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. Resources that have achieved significance within the past 50 years also may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, provided that enough time has lapsed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.

4.3 CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined if the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification.

4.4 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §5097.98
Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code Part 7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant or “MLD”) it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

4.5 CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS GENERAL PLAN
The City of Citrus Heights General Plan (Plan) contains goals, policies, and actions that embody the City's approach for achieving the community's vision for its future. Goals identify physical, economic, environmental, and/or social ends that the community desires. The policies are used directly to guide City decision-makers and staff to respond by developing proposals and community actions. Applicable sections of the Plan having to do with cultural resources conservation are outlined below (City of Citrus Heights 2011).

Resource Conservation: This element of the Plan addresses biological resources, open space, energy conservation, and cultural resources. Its focus is on the protection and enhancement of these limited resources.

GOAL 42: Preserve and protect the City’s Native American heritage. • Policy 42.1: Determine early in the planning process whether archaeological resources may potentially be located on a development site.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 13 o Action A. In the event that any prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources are discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the developer shall consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist, then representatives from the City of Citrus Heights and the qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist would meet to determine the appropriate course of action.
o Action B. In the event that human remains are discovered during the implementation of the proposed project, the local coroner must be contacted immediately. Both the Native American Heritage Commission (pursuant to NAGPRA) and any identified descendants should be notified, and recommendations received, if the remains are determined to be of Native American origin (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7070.5, Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98).

GOAL 43: Preserve and protect places that embody the City’s social, architectural and agricultural history.
• Policy 43.1: Encourage property owners to maintain and preserve historic properties in the best possible condition.
o Action A. Adopt a Historic Preservation Ordinance to identify and preserve important historic resources.
• Policy 43.2: Incorporate natural resources such as land and water into development when appropriate to understanding and appreciating the history of a site. o Action A. Review and revise the grading ordinance to require appropriate mitigation measures when historic or archaeological resources are discovered prior to or during development of property.
• Policy 43.3: Support preservation of historic resources, including providing for adaptive reuse where appropriate.
o Action A. Pursue grants for historic preservation.
o Action B. Implement the State Historical Building Code on eligible resources. o Action C. Establish thresholds by which future projects can be judged when considering historic impacts. These standards should include height and massing considerations for proposed projects that are located in close proximity to historic resources (individual structures or districts) and should define locations for potential prehistoric resources.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 14 5.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH

5.1 CHRIS RECORDS SEARCH
On July 10, 2025, and December 2, 2025, records searches were conducted at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) at California State University (CSU), Sacramento, a repository of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). The records searches addressed the entire APE and a

0.5-mile radius around the APE. The purposes of the records searches were to (1) identify precontact and historic-era resources within the search radius, (2) determine which portions of the APE have been previously studied, and (3) ascertain the potential for cultural resources and human remains to occur within the APE. The searches included reviews of USGS archaeological site location maps at the NCIC, built environment and archaeological resource records, and data from previous studies. Sacramento County listings in the NRHP, CRHR, California State Historic Resources Inventory, Built Environment Resource Directory for Sacramento County, and Caltrans Bridge Survey were also examined.

5.1.1 Previous Studies
The NCIC records search identified 28 studies that have previously been conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE. Of these, six studies addressed areas that included or intersected the APE. The previous studies are summarized below in Table 1, Previous Studies Conducted Within 0.5 Mile of the APE, below.

Table 1
PREVIOUS STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN 0.5 MILE OF THE APE
Report
Number
NCICYear Title Author(s) Affiliation Within
APE?
00046 1976 An Archeological Reconnaissance of Two
Localities in Sunrise Recreation and Park District:

Sacramento County, California
Johnson, J. J. California State
University,
Sacramento
No
00123 1977 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed Greenback Woods Subdivision, Sacramento
County
Peak, A. S. Peak and
Associates
Yes
00227 1978 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed Hidden Creek Development, Sacramento County,
CA
Peak, A. S. Peak and
Associates
No
00312 1982 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Creekside Manor Development, Sacramento County, CA
Peak, A. S. Peak and
Associates
No
00417 1979 Cultural Resource Assessment of Sacramento
Municipal Utility District's Project B, Phase I,
230kV Transmission Line, the Orangevale Tap,
Placer County, to Orangevale Substation,
Sacramento County, California
Peak, A. S. Peak and
Associates
Yes
00430 1980 A Cultural Resource Study of the Arcade Creek Project, Sacramento County, California
Derr, E. H. Archaeological
Study Center
No
ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 15 Report
Number
NCICYear Title Author(s) Affiliation Within
APE?
00590 1980 An Archaeological Survey of the Creekwood
Development, Sacramento County, California
Derr, E. H. Archaeological
Study Center
No
03023 1998 Negative Historic Property Survey Report for the Greenback Lane/Interstate 80 Interchange
Project, Sacramento County, California
Bakic, T. PAR
Environmental
Services, Inc.

No
03027 1992 Draft Environmental Impact Report for
Greenback Lane Widening, I-80 to Parkoaks
Drive, A Distance of 1.07 Miles
Barry, A. Unknown No
06250 2002 Historic Property Survey Report for the
Greenback Lane Widening Project
Nadolski, J. A. Pacific Legacy,
Inc.

No
06257 2001 Historical and Cultural Resource Assessment
Proposed Telecommunications Facility
Pastron, A. G. Brown & Mills,
Inc.

No
06264 2002 Cultural Resources Assessment: Oaks at Arcade Creek Development Parcel, Sacramento County,
California
Green, J. K. ECORP
Consulting, Inc.

No
06283 1989 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed
Wendell Herron Rezone
Warner, L. E. Unknown No
06301 1989 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Jan Mojzis Land Division
Warner, L. E. Unknown No
06454 2004 Sacramento County Flood Hazard Mitigation,
Sacramento County Department of Water
Resources
US Department
of Homeland
Security, FEMA,
and A. Amaglio
US Department
of Homeland
Security, FEMA
No
06722 2005 Archaeological Inventory Survey Proposed Fair Oaks Drive-In Development Project, c. 21 acres
North of Greenback Lane, Fair Oaks, Sacramento
County, CA
Jensen, P. Jensen &
Associates
No
07130 2002 Roseville Energy Facility Cultural Resources Hatoff, B., and R. Egherman
URS Yes
08619 2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network
Construction Project, State of
California
Arrington, C. SWCA
Environmental
Consultants
No
10345 2009 Cultural Resources Investigation for ClearWire Site CA-SAC0621-A "Greenback & Auburn" 6212
Auburn Boulevard, Citrus Heights, Sacramento
County, California 95621
Losee, C. Archaeological
Resources
Technology
No
10382 2006 City of Citrus Heights Historical Resources Survey Roland, C. Roland Nawi Associates
Yes
10582 2010 Toa Baptist Church - CA-SAC0630A Supernowicz, D.

EarthTouch,
Inc.

No
12183 2016 Cultural Resources Inventory Report: Mitchell Farms, Sacramento County, California
Webb, M. ECORP
Consulting, Inc.

No
ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 16 Report
Number
NCICYear Title Author(s) Affiliation Within
APE?
13083 2020 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory and Effects Assessment for the Sacramento
Suburban Water District Arcade Creek Crossing
Project, City of Citrus Heights, Sacramento
County, California
Sikes, N. E., P.

Hanes, and C. J.

Arrington
Natural
Investigations
Company
Yes
13201 2021 Section 106 Review of Federally-Funded
Residential Rehabilitation Project at 5935 Auburn
Boulevard #152, City of Citrus Heights,
Sacramento County
Cotter, S. Citrus Heights
Housing &
Human Services
Program
No
13779 2021 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the SN010 Foothill Farms Collocation Monopole Site, Trileaf
Project #676041
Macko, M. Trileaf
Corporation
No
14294 2023 Section 106 Review of Federally Funded
Residential Rehabilitation Project at 5935 Auburn
Boulevard #7, City of Citrus Heights, Sacramento
County
Piva, N. City of Citrus
Heights
No
14295 2023 Section 106 Review of Federally Funded
Residential Rehabilitation Project at 5935 Auburn
Boulevard #31, City of
Citrus Heights, Sacramento County
Piva, N. City of Citrus
Heights
No
14406 2021 Cultural Resources Study, Sacramento Area
Sewer District Creek Crossing Project,
Sacramento County, CA
Gross, C. Analytical
Environmental
Services
Yes

5.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources
The NCIC records search also identified six previously documented cultural resources within 0.5 mile of the APE, although none of the resources are located within the APE itself. They are described briefly in Table 2, Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5 Mile of the APE, below.

Table 2
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN 0.5 MILE OF THE APE Primary
# P-34- Year Recorder(s) Resource Type Age Description Within APE?

NRHP/CRHR
Status
000015 1980 Carvey, A., E.

Derr
Site Precontact Lithic scatter, including
a core fragment and
fire-affected rock
No Not
evaluated
001322 2002 SaintClair,
M.

Building Historic Abandoned residence
(1934)
No Not eligible
001328 2002 Napoli, A. Building Historic Van Maren House (ca. 1849;
moved/remodeled
1919)
No Not eligible
004033 2006 Roland, C. Building Historic 12 Mile House
(roadhouse; 1930)
No CRHR
eligible
ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 17 Primary
# P-34- Year Recorder(s) Resource Type Age Description Within APE?

NRHP/CRHR
Status
004263 2010 Supernowicz,
D. E.

Building Historic Twin Oaks Baptist
Church (1963)
No Not eligible
005171 2006 Roland, C. Building Historic DeKay/Sunrise Ranch (1868)
No Not eligible

5.1.3 Caltrans Bridge Survey
Reviews of the Caltrans Bridge Survey determined that none of the four bridges addressed in this report qualify for inclusion in the NRHP.

5.2 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS

FILE SEARCH
On July 9, 2025, HELIX requested that the NAHC conduct a search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains in the vicinity of the Indian River Bridge/Matheny Bridge and Sundance Bridge study areas. A written response received from the NAHC on July 11, 2025, stated that the results of the SLF search were negative. On February 23, 2025, HELIX submitted a separate SLF search request for the Patton Bridge study area. NAHC responded on February 24, 2025, and stated that the results were also negative for that study area.

6.0 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
This section describes the methods and results of the field surveys of the APE. Survey photographs are included as Appendix B, Representative Site Photographs.

6.1 SURVEY METHODS
The project’s APE was surveyed on July 17, 2025, and December 16, 2025. The pedestrian survey involved the systematic investigation of the ground surface of the entire APE, including all three study areas and their associated impact areas, by walking in 10-meter transects unless prohibited by vegetation or topography. During the pedestrian survey, the ground surface was examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, fire-affected rock, precontact ceramics), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a precontact cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations, wells) or historic-era debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances such as landscape modifications and cut banks were also visually inspected.

6.2 SURVEY RESULTS

6.2.1 Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge Study Area During the survey, ground visibility in the Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge study area was less than 10 percent in most areas due to dense grass and brush cover (Photograph 1). Visibility was slightly better, but still poor, in areas with less tree cover where the ground surface was obscured by a thick ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 18 carpet of matted dry grass (Photograph 2). Private property and development extend as far as Arcade Creek’s southern bank in some areas (Photograph 3).

The creek was dry at the time of the survey, which allowed a thorough examination of the creek bed.

Portions of the creek within the APE are deeply cut and appear to have actively eroded during the last rainy season (Photograph 4). Water-borne debris, including lumber, was seen on the creek banks in some areas (Photograph 5), and tabular concrete fragments were seen in the creek bed. No exposed bedrock was visible within the creek.

No precontact or historic-era cultural resources were found during the survey of the Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge study area.

6.2.2 Sundance Bridge Study Area
Ground visibility was poor during the survey of the Sundance Bridge study area, with less than 15 percent of the ground surface visible due to dense vegetation and oak duff (Photograph 6). The terrain in the area is gently undulating, with a gradual incline to the east. Arcade Creek was flowing slowly with muddy water at the time of the survey, making it impossible to see the creek bed (Photograph 7).

Nevertheless, no exposed bedrock was seen in the vicinity.

The area was littered with modern debris, including food wrappers, discarded clothing, plastic water bottles, modern food cans, and tarp fragments. Most of this debris seemed to originate from homeless encampments that are prevalent throughout the area.

No precontact or historic-era cultural resources were found during the survey of the Sundance Bridge study area.

6.2.3 Patton Bridge Study Area
Ground surface visibility throughout the Patton Bridge study area was poor (less than 15 percent) during the survey due to thick grass, blackberry bramble, and oak duff, as well as non-native vegetation such as cactus, St. John’s Wort, yucca, and bamboo (Photograph 8). The area appears to consist primarily of undulating floodplain, some of it developed and graded, and some of it seemingly shaped by seasonal water flow. Cripple Creek held standing water at the time of the survey (Photograph 9). No exposed bedrock was visible in the vicinity of the creek.

The area is surrounded by development, which also affected accessibility of the study area – some property fencelines extended into the study area and restricted access (Photograph 10). There was sparse modern trash within the study area, including plastic beverage containers, plastic wrappers, and materials likely leftover from residential activity, such as fence posts and sheets of plywood. There were also remnants of concrete debris near the creek, likely left from bridge construction/maintenance and other utilities work in the area.

In the far eastern portion of the Patton Bridge study area, an approximately 90-foot-long segment of a possible ditch was observed running north-south from a horse corral outside of the northeast quadrant of the project area to Cripple Creek (Photograph 11). The ditch is most visible at its southern end, where it is approximately 2.5 feet deep, and becomes less visible approximately 20 feet north of the creek.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 19 7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 SUMMARY
HELIX conducted this CRA to assist the City in addressing the requirements of CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA. This CRA was prepared based on background research and a field survey of the entirety of the project’s APE.

This assessment determined that six previously documented resources are located within 0.5 mile of the APE, although none are located within the APE itself. During the field survey, no undocumented cultural resources were found within any of the three areas that comprise the APE. These findings suggest that the likelihood of precontact or historic-era cultural resources being encountered during project implementation is low.

Despite the low cultural sensitivity of the APE, HELIX recommends implementation of measures to address the accidental discovery of cultural resources and/or human remains during project activities.

These recommendations are summarized in Section 7.2, Recommendations.

HELIX concludes that, with the implementation of these recommendations, the following findings are appropriate for the project:
• No Significant Impact on Historical or Unique Archaeological Resources under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
• No Significant Impact to Human Remains resulting from disturbance; and • No Adverse Effect to Historic Properties under Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800.5[a]).

No additional study or documentation for cultural resources are recommended at this time. However, in the unlikely event that archaeological cultural resources, and/or human remains, or funerary objects are discovered during project construction, the provisions contained in Section 7.2 of this report should be implemented to avoid or substantially reduce the severity of impacts to such finds.

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.2.1 Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources
In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities should be halted within 100 feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts, or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards should assess the resource and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR- or NRHP-eligible, additional documentation and analysis, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 20 7.2.2 Accidental Discovery of Human Remains
Although unlikely, there is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously undocumented human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains during project construction, guidelines from both Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 should be considered.

In accordance with PRC Section 5097.98, if there is a discovery or recognition of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the specific location or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the City shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project impact area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant, or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
• The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or • The City rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the City.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 21 8.0 REFERENCES
Beardsley, R.K
1948 Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. American Antiquity 14:1–28. 1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 25. Berkeley.

Beck, W. A., and Y. D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Bennyhoff, J.
1950 California Fish Spears and Harpoons. University of California Anthropological Records 9(4):295–338.

Chartkoff J.L. and K.K. Chartkoff.
1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Menlo Park.

City of Citrus Heights
2011 General Plan. Available at: https://www.citrusheights.net/202/General- Plan.

Cook, S.F.
1955 The Epidemic of 1830–1833 in California and Oregon. Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3). 1976 The Population of the California Indians 1769–1970. University of California Press.

Berkeley, California.

Dickel, D.N., P.D. Schulz, and H.M. McHenry
1984 Central California: Prehistoric Subsistence Changes and Health. In Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture, edited by Mark Nathan Cohen and George J. Armelagos, pp. 439– 462. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida.

Fredrickson, D.A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Gerow, B.A.
1954 The Problem of Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences. 1974 Comments on Fredrickson’s Cultural Diversity. Journal of California Anthropology 1(2):239–246.

Gerow, B.A., with R. Force
1968 An Analysis of the University Village Complex with a Reappraisal of Central California Archaeology. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.

Gilbert, F. T.
1879 History of San Joaquin County, California. Thompson and West, Oakland.

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 22 Grunsky, F. R.
1989 Pathfinders of the Sacramento Region. Elk Grove Library, California.

Heizer, R. F., and A. J. Almquist
1971 The Other Californians: Prejudice and Discrimination Under Spain, Mexico and the United States to 1920. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hoover, Mildred B., Hero E. Rensch, and Ethel G. Rensch 2002 Historic Spots in California. 5th edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Hughes, R.E. (editor)
1994 Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California. In: Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson. Assembled and edited by Richard E.

Hughes. Contributions of the University of California No. 52, Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley, CA.

Johnson, J.J.
1976 Archaeological Investigations at the Blodgett Site (CA–SAC–267), Sloughhouse Locality, California. Report to the U.S. National Parks Service, Western Regional Office, Tucson, AZ.

Kroeber, A. L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Washington, D.C.

Kyle, D.E., M.B. Hoover, H.E. Rensch, E.G. Rensch, and W. N. Abeloe 1990 Historical Spots in California. Stanford. Stanford University Press.

Lillard, J.B. and W.K. Purves
1936 The Archaeology of the Deer Creek–Cosumnes Area, Sacramento Co., California.

Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 1.

Lillard, J.B., R.F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga
1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology, Bulletin 2.

Little, B., E.M. Seibert, J. Townsend, J.H. Sprinkle, and J. Knoerl 2000 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties. National Register Bulletin 36. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Moratto, M.J.
1984 California Archaeology. San Diego. Academic Press.

Napton, Kyle L.
1997 Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Investigations of the proposed Alpine Natural Gas Operating Company, Calaveras County Natural Gas Distribution Project A. 96-08-015 (Phase I: La Contenta/Rancho Calaveras).

ITEM 10
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project | May 2026 23 National Park Service
1997 How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin. U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Ragir, S.R.
1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contribution of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 15. Berkeley. CA.

Schenck, W.E., and E.J. Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. American Archaeology and Ethnology 25:286–413.

Shoup, L.H., and R.T. Milliken
1999 Inigo of Rancho Posolmi: the Life and Times of a Mission Indian. Ballena Press. Novato, California.

Wallace, W.J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230.

Warren, C.N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C. Irwin–Will.

Wilson, Norman L. and Arlene Towne
1978 Nisenan. In: Handbook of North American Indians: California, Volume 8, edited by Robert F. Heizer. William G. Sturtevant, Editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

ITEM 10
Appendix A
Figures
ITEM 10
Yolo
Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA) 0.---..---r----r--,1 M i le s f E--3 E--3 r
HELIX Site and Vicinity Map Environmenta/Planning -------------------------~-~- Figure 1
ITEM 10
Legend
c:::J Indian River Drive and Matheny Way Area
of Potential Effects (APE) - 11.12 Acres
Indian River Drive Impact Area - 0.27 Acre
Matheny Way Impact Area - 0.14 Acre
Source: Aerial (DigitalGlobe, 4/26/2022) O..-----r--..-----r----,300 Feet f E--3 E--3 r
Indian River Drive and Matheny Way
HELIX Area of Potential Effects
Environmental Planning
Figure 2a
ITEM 10
Citrus Hei hts Creek Erosion and Brid e Scour Protection Pro·ect Legend
Sundance Bridge Area of Potential Effects
(APE) - 4.45 Acres
Sundance Bridge Impact Area - 0.04 Acre
O.----r--r---ir----. 200 Feet f
E--3 E--3 r
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Source: Ae ri al (DigitalGlobe, 4/ 26/2022)
Sundance Bridge Aerial Map
Area of Potential Effects
Figure 2b
ITEM 10
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Legend
Patton Avenue Area of Potential Effects
(APE) - 1.19 Acres
Patton Bridge Impact Area - 0.12 Acre
f Source: Ae ri al (DigitalGlobe, 4/ 26/2022)O.----r--r---ir----.100 Feet E--3 E--3 r
Patton Bridge Aerial Map
HELIX Area of Potential Effects
Environmental Planning
Figure 2c
ITEM 10
Appendix B
Representative Survey Photographs
ITEM 10
W:\PROJECTS\C\CWECorp_04339\00027_CWEMSA2025-2028\001_CitrusHeightsCrkErosionBridgeScour\Reports\CRA\Report\App B Photos Representative Survey Photographs
Appendix B
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion & Bridge Scour Protection Project Photograph 1. Dense vegetation in the Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge study area, looking east.

Photograph 2. Matted dry grass in the Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge study area, looking south.

ITEM 10
W:\PROJECTS\C\CWECorp_04339\00027_CWEMSA2025-2028\001_CitrusHeightsCrkErosionBridgeScour\Reports\CRA\Report\App B Photos Representative Survey Photographs
Appendix B
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion & Bridge Scour Protection Project Photograph 3. Private property extending into the Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge study area, looking northwest.

Photograph 4. Arcade Creek through the Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge study area, looking northwest.

ITEM 10
W:\PROJECTS\C\CWECorp_04339\00027_CWEMSA2025-2028\001_CitrusHeightsCrkErosionBridgeScour\Reports\CRA\Report\App B Photos Representative Survey Photographs
Appendix B
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion & Bridge Scour Protection Project Photograph 5. Water-borne debris in the Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge study area, looking south.

Photograph 6. Dense vegetation and duff in the Sundance Bridge study area, looking southeast.

ITEM 10
W:\PROJECTS\C\CWECorp_04339\00027_CWEMSA2025-2028\001_CitrusHeightsCrkErosionBridgeScour\Reports\CRA\Report\App B Photos Representative Survey Photographs
Appendix B
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion & Bridge Scour Protection Project Photograph 7. Arcade Creek under the Sundance Bridge, looking southwest.

Photograph 8. Dense vegetation in the Patton Bridge study area, looking west.

ITEM 10
W:\PROJECTS\C\CWECorp_04339\00027_CWEMSA2025-2028\001_CitrusHeightsCrkErosionBridgeScour\Reports\CRA\Report\App B Photos Representative Survey Photographs
Appendix B
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion & Bridge Scour Protection Project Photograph 9. Cripple Creek under the Patton Bridge, looking west.

Photograph 10. Private property extending into the Patton Bridge study area, looking south.

ITEM 10
W:\PROJECTS\C\CWECorp_04339\00027_CWEMSA2025-2028\001_CitrusHeightsCrkErosionBridgeScour\Reports\CRA\Report\App B Photos Representative Survey Photographs
Appendix B
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion & Bridge Scour Protection Project Photograph 11. Possible ditch at the point where it drains into Cripple Creek, Patton Bridge study area, looking southwest.

ITEM 10
Appendix E
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
ITEM 10

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Purpose of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6, requires that a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) be established upon completing findings. CEQA stipulates that “the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.”
This MMRP has been prepared in compliance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed according to schedule and maintained in a satisfactory manner during the construction and operation of the project, as required. The City of Citrus Heights (City) is the Lead Agency for the Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project (project) under CEQA and shall administer and implement this MMRP. The City is responsible for reviewing all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition. The City shall rely on information provided by the project site observers/monitors (e.g., construction manager, project manager, biologist, archaeologist, etc.) as accurate and up-to-date and shall provide personnel to field check mitigation measure status, as required.

A table (attached) has been prepared to assist the responsible parties in implementing the MMRP. The table identifies individual mitigation measures, monitoring/mitigation timing, the responsible person/agency for implementing the measure, and space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence found in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
1 ITEM 10

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date

AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices The following Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices are considered feasible for controlling fugitive dust from a construction site. Control of fugitive dust is required by SMAQMD Rule 403 and enforced by SMAQMD staff. Prior to issuing construction permits, contracts, or orders the City shall verify the following measures specified on construction contracts and/or construction documentation.
• Water all exposed surfaces two times daily. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads.
• Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered.
• Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph). • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be Prior to issuing
permits.

City
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
2 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Minimize idling time by either shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing time of idling to 5 minutes. Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site; and • Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Sanford’s Arrowhead Avoidance At Indian River Bridge, Matheny Bridge, and Sundance Bridge:
• A qualified botanist shall conduct a special-status plant survey within the appropriate identification (blooming) period (May - October) prior to the initiation of any ground-disturbing activities. The survey should be conducted within two years of the anticipated start date of construction and preferably the same year as the start of construction.

If no special-status plants are observed, then a letter report documenting the survey results should be prepared and no further measures are recommended.
• If special-status plants are observed within the study area, the location of the special-status plants shall be marked with pin flags or other highly visible markers and may also be marked by a sub-meter accurate GPS. The project proponent shall determine if the specialstatus plant(s) on-site can be avoided by project design or utilize Prior to the
initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities.

Qualified Botanist;
Project
Proponent; CDFW
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
3 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
construction techniques to avoid impacts to the special-status plant species. All special-status plants to be avoided shall have exclusion fencing or other highly visible material marking the avoidance area (if necessary) and the avoidance area shall remain in place throughout the entire construction period. If special-status plants are observed in portions of the study area that are not located near the project footprint, exclusion fencing may not be needed. A qualified botanist shall determine if exclusion fencing will be needed based on the location of the plant(s) and the most current project design. • If special-status plants are found within the study area and cannot be avoided, the project proponent shall consult with the CDFW to determine appropriate measures to mitigate for the loss of specialstatus plant populations. These measures may include gathering seed/rhizomes from impacted populations for planting within nearby suitable habitat, preserving or enhancing existing offsite populations of the plant species affected by the project, or restoring suitable habitat for special-status plant species as directed by the regulatory agencies.

At Patton Bridge:
• A qualified botanist shall flag populations of Sanford’s arrowhead in the vicinity of the work area for avoidance prior to commencement of project construction. The vicinity of the work area for flagging will be determined by the final engineering plans at the discretion of the botanist. All flagged Sanford’s arrowhead shall be avoided by construction activities. A biological monitor may be warranted during construction if plants are in close proximity to the work area and have potential to be impacted by construction.

Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
4 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
• If Sanford’s arrowhead cannot be avoided, the project proponent shall consult with the CDFW to determine appropriate measures to mitigate for the loss of special-status plant populations. These measures may include gathering seed/rhizomes from impacted populations for planting within nearby suitable habitat, preserving or enhancing existing offsite populations of the plant species affected by the project, or restoring suitable habitat for special-status plant species as directed by the regulatory agencies.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Training A qualified biologist shall conduct an environmental awareness training for all project-related personnel before the initiation of work. The training shall include the identification of Sanford’s arrowhead, northwestern pond turtle, Cooper’s hawk, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, other nesting and migratory birds, and pallid pat; required practices before the start of construction; general measures that are being implemented to protect the species as they relate to the project; penalties for non-compliance; and boundaries of the permitted disturbance zones. Upon completion of the training, all construction personnel shall sign a form stating they have attended the training and understand all the measures. Proof of this instruction shall be kept on file with the City and biologists on-site.

Prior to the
initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities.

Qualitied
Biologist;
Construction
Personnel
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Pre-Construction Northwestern Pond Turtle Survey
Construction is recommended to commence during the active season for northwestern pond turtle (February – November) when this species is mobile.

These timeframes are dependent on local weather conditions and can fluctuate depending on seasonal conditions.

A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for northwestern pond turtle within seven days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities Within seven days
of initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities.

Qualified
Biologist; City;
CDFW
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
5 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
at each bridge location. The pre-construction survey shall also include a survey of surrounding upland habitat for the presence of turtle nests if conducted during the nesting season. Eggs and hatchlings could be present in the nest site beyond the nesting season, and therefore, a pre-construction turtle nest survey is recommended to identify nest sites if construction occurs from April 1 – January 31. These timeframes will depend on local weather conditions, and the timing of the pre-construction turtle nest survey should be based on the weather conditions present at the time and at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

If nesting northwestern pond turtles are identified within the survey limits, then no work shall commence within 300 feet of the nest until the turtles have hatched. The 300-foot buffer should be indicated by temporary fencing if construction has or will begin before the nesting period has ended (the period from egg laying to emergence of hatchlings is normally April to November). If a non-nesting northwestern pond turtle is found in the project site during preconstruction surveys, construction activities should not start until the turtle has been relocated by a qualified biologist with appropriate approvals from CDFW to a suitable location outside of the construction zone. The qualified biologist should notify the City and CDFW within 24 hours if northwestern pond turtle is found and shall notify of any individuals that have been relocated. Any northwestern pond turtles observed in the survey limits will be reported to the CNDDB.

If construction does not commence within seven days of the pre-construction survey, or halts for more than seven days, then an additional survey is required prior to starting or resuming work.

Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
6 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Pre-Construction Nesting Special-Status and Migratory Birds Survey
Active nests and nesting birds are protected by the California FGC Sections 3503 and 3503.5, 3513 and the MBTA. Ground-disturbing and other construction activities including vegetation clearing, tree removal/trim, and construction could impact nesting birds if these activities occur during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31). To avoid impacts to nesting birds, all ground disturbing activity shall be completed between September 1 and January 31, if feasible. If construction cannot occur outside of the nesting season, the following measures shall be implemented:
• If construction activities occur during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey to determine the presence of any active nests within the study area. Additionally, the surrounding 500 feet of the study area shall be surveyed for active raptor nests, where accessible, and the surrounding 0.5 mile of the study area shall be surveyed for active Swainson’s hawk nests, where accessible. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted within seven days prior to commencement of ground-disturbing or other construction activities at each bridge location. If the nesting bird survey shows that there is no evidence of active nests, then a letter report shall be prepared to document the survey and be provided to the City, and no additional surveys are recommended.

If construction does not commence within seven days of the nesting bird survey, or halts for more than seven days, then an additional survey is required prior to starting or resuming work within the nesting season.

Within seven days
of initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities.

Qualified
Biologist; City
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
7 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
o If active nests are found, then the qualified biologist shall establish a species-specific buffer to prohibit development activities near the nest to avoid and minimize nest disturbance until the young have successfully fledged or the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active. Buffer distances may range from 30 feet for some songbirds up to 0.5 mile for Swainson’s hawk. Nest monitoring may also be warranted during certain phases of construction to ensure nesting birds are not adversely impacted. The need for nest monitoring would be determined by the qualified biologist based upon the species nesting and the location of the nest in relation to the project disturbance area, proposed levels of project disturbance, and existing disturbance levels. If active nests are found under any of the bridges or within any trees slated for removal/trimming, then an appropriate buffer shall be established around the bridge/tree, and no construction shall occur until a qualified biologist determines that the nest has successfully fledged and/or is no longer active. Nest avoidance buffer distances may need to be expanded if the biologist determines that the initial avoidance buffer is still resulting in avoidance behavior from the adults.
• If construction occurs outside of the nesting bird season (September 1 to January 31), a nesting bird survey and environmental training for nesting birds would not be required.

Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
8 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Pre-Construction Roosting Bat Survey A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within seven days of the commencement of ground-disturbing or other construction activities at each bridge location. This survey may be combined with the nesting bird survey, if possible. If no bats are observed, a letter report shall be prepared to document the survey, and no additional measures are recommended. If construction does not commence within seven days of the pre-construction survey, or halts for more than seven days, an additional survey is recommended before starting work.

If bats are present and roosting on or within 100 feet of the project footprint, then the biologist shall establish an appropriate no-disturbance buffer around the roost site. No construction activities should occur within the nodisturbance buffer until a qualified biologist has determined the roost is no longer active. Additional mitigation measures for bat species, such as the installation of bat boxes or alternate roost structures, would be recommended only if special-status bat species are found to be roosting within the project area.

Within seven days
of initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities.

Qualified
Biologist; City
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Aquatic Resources and Permitting Requirements Prior to the initiation of any construction activities that could result in impacts to potentially regulated aquatic features, the extent of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of aquatic features within the study area shall be mapped, and applicable permits shall be prepared and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for any project-related impacts to these features. Any conditions included in the final permits, including prescribed mitigation measures, shall be required to be implemented before filling or impacting these features.

Section 404 authorization from the USACE and a Section 401 Water Quality Prior to the
initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities.

Project Proponent
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
9 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
Certification from the RWQCB may be required before the start of construction that will impact any waters of the U.S. Any waters of the U.S. or jurisdictional wetlands that would be lost or disturbed shall be replaced or rehabilitated on a “no-net-loss” basis in accordance with the USACE mitigation guidelines and City requirements. Habitat restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement shall be at a location and by methods agreeable to the agencies.

If a 404 permit is required for the proposed project, then water quality concerns during construction would be addressed in the Section 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

If the aquatic features are determined to not be subject to federal jurisdiction, then these features may still be subject to waste discharge requirements under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Section 13260(a) of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (contained in the California Water Code) requires any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste, other than to a community sewer system, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the State (all surface and subsurface waters) to file a report of waste discharge. The discharge of dredge or fill material into the ditches may constitute a discharge of waste that could affect the quality of waters of the State. A report of waste discharge shall be filed for impacts to non-federal waters, if required.

The creek corridor is also likely regulated by CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. CDFW asserts jurisdiction over native riparian habitat adjacent to aquatic features, including native trees over four inches in DBH. If an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected by the activity, CDFW may propose reasonable measures that shall allow the protection of those resources. If these measures are agreeable to the parties involved, they shall enter into an agreement with CDFW identifying the approved activities and associated mitigation measures.

Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
10 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Tree Impact Assessment and Permit Application Prior to issuance of a Building or Grading Permit for the project, the City shall submit a final Tree Impact Assessment for impacts to trees from project construction activities located within the City of Citrus Heights (Indian River, Matheny, and Patton Bridges) and County of Sacramento (Sundance Bridge).

The Tree Impact Assessment report shall include all preservation measures, including details for modified construction methods that the City shall undertake during construction to ensure the long-term health and safety of the trees. The impact assessment report shall take into account improvement plans that show any encroachment into the driplines of any protected trees. If avoiding tree removal or construction within the dripline of protected trees is not feasible, other mitigation measures offered by a certified arborist and accepted by the Planning Division must be made. The proposed project shall abide by the Standard Policies and Procedures for Approved Work listed in Section 106.39.050 of the City’s Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance, and the County’s required measures in Sections 19.12.130, 19.12.140,

19.12.150, and 19.12.160. If required by the City or County upon approval of the Tree Permits, replacement tree plantings or in-lieu mitigation fees will be completed or paid in accordance with City and County requirements. Prior to any project activities that could potentially impact protected trees, an International Society of Arborists (ISA) certified arborist shall conduct an arborist assessment of the inventoried trees and prepare an arborist survey report. The arborist survey report shall be used to determine tree protection measures and shall be submitted to the City of Citrus Heights along with a Tree Permit application. All measures and tree mitigation requirements in the Tree Permit shall be followed.

Prior to issuing
permits.

ISA Certified
Arborist; City
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
11 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Accidental Discovery of Cultural Resources In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts, or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards shall assess the resource and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR- or NRHP-eligible, additional documentation and analysis, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted.

Immediately upon
discovery.

Construction
Personnel;
Qualified
Archaeologist
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Accidental Discovery of Human Remains Although unlikely, there is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously undocumented human remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains during project construction, guidelines from both Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 shall be considered.

In accordance with PRC Section 5097.98, if there is a discovery or recognition of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

Construction
Personnel; County
Coroner; NAHC;
City
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
12 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the City shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with
appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project impact area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation
within 48 hours after being notified by the commission; • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or The City rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the City.

Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
13 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Paleontological Resources
In the event paleontological or other geologically sensitive resources (such as fossils or fossil formations) are identified during any phase of project construction, all excavations within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the find is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate representative at the City who shall coordinate with the paleontologist as to any necessary investigation of the find. If the find is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City shall implement those measures which may include avoidance, preservation in place, or other appropriate measures, as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Immediately upon
discovery.

Construction
Personnel;
Qualified
Paleontologist;
City

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Avoid and Minimize Impact to Underground Utilities
At least seven (7) days prior to ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall call Underground Service Alert at 811 to provide notification of the planned activities, including the locations of excavation activities. No ground disturbing activities shall take place until the locations of the underground utilities are identified and marked at the site by the utility provider. The construction contractor shall conduct an on-site meeting pursuant to Gov. Code Section 4216, to determine actions required to verify the location of the underground utilities. If excavation is planned to occur within 15 feet of the locations of field marked underground utilities, hand tools shall be used to expose the exact location of all lines before using any power-driven excavation equipment in the area. Should construction activities result in any damage to underground utilities (including a slight gouge, scrape, or dent to a pipeline, its coating, or At least seven
days prior to
ground-disturbing
activities.

Project
Proponent;
Construction
Contractor
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
14 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
any component attached to or running alongside the pipe, such as a wire), the damage shall be immediately reported by calling the utility provider(s).

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Utility Coordination and Safe Removal Procedures
Prior to any ground-disturbing activities associated with the relocation or removal of utilities at the Indian River Bridge and Matheny Bridge locations, the City shall contact Consolidated Communications (CCI), Comcast, and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to provide notification of planned excavation that would impact the abandoned CCI and Comcast joint trench conduits at Indian River Bridge active and inactive PG&E gas lines at Matheny Bridge. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur until the abovementioned underground and exposed utilities have been identified and field-marked by the responsible utility provider(s).

In accordance with California Government Code Section 4216, the City, excavation contractor, and relevant pipeline or utility operators shall conduct an on-site coordination meeting prior to the start of work to review the planned excavation methods, discuss utility protection requirements, and determine appropriate verification procedures for locating and removing utilities in the creek bed.

If excavation or utility removal activities are planned to occur within 15 feet of any marked or exposed utility line, hand tools shall be used to expose and verify the exact location of all lines in the proposed excavation areas prior to the use of any power-driven excavation equipment in the area. Construction personnel shall implement all safety protocols required by each utility owner, including any required stand-by monitoring, pressure test requirements, or temporary shutoff procedures for the active PG&E gas line.

Prior to the
initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities.

Construction
Contractor; City
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
15 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
If construction activities result in damage to a utility, including minor coating scrapes, wire disturbance, conduit breakage, or any visible gouge, dent, or abrasion to a pipeline or line component, work shall immediately stop in the affected area. The damage shall be immediately reported to the appropriate utility provider, and repairs shall be completed consistently with the utility owner’s specifications before work may resume.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Preparation and Implementation of a Dewatering Plan
Prior to the start of any in-water construction activities, the City shall prepare a project-specific Dewatering Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and applicable regulatory agencies. The plan shall describe the methods for isolating work areas and maintaining downstream flows. The plan shall also identify best management practices to prevent turbidity, sedimentation, or pollutant discharges downstream and outline procedures for gradually returning flows to the channel once construction is complete. The City shall implement all elements of the approved Dewatering Plan throughout construction.

Prior to the
initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities.

City
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Standard Construction Best Management Practices
The City shall implement the following standard construction BMPs throughout construction to minimize potential water quality impacts. • The project impact area shall be delineated and/or fenced prior to the start of construction.
• Appropriate erosion control measures shall be used (e.g., hay bales, filter fences, vegetative buffer strips, or other accepted equivalents) to reduce siltation and contaminated runoff from leaving the proposed Throughout
construction
activities.

City; Construction
Personnel
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
16 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
project impact area. The integrity and effectiveness of the BMPs shall be inspected daily by the resident engineer. Corrective actions and repairs shall be carried out immediately.
• Construction by-products and pollutants such as petroleum products, chemicals, or other deleterious materials shall not be used adjacent to or within the creeks.
• A plan for the emergency clean-up of any spills of fuel or other materials shall be available on-site when construction equipment is in use, and adequate materials shall be available for spill clean-up and during storm events.
• Construction vehicles and equipment shall be maintained to prevent contamination of soil or water from external grease and oil or from leaking hydraulic fluid, fuel, oil, and grease.
• Leaking vehicles and equipment shall be removed from the site. • Materials storage areas containing hazardous or potentially toxic materials such as petroleum products shall have an impermeable membrane between the ground and the hazardous material and shall be bermed to prevent the discharge of pollutants to ground water and runoff water.
• Equipment shall be re-fueled and serviced at designated construction staging areas, as far as possible from the creeks.

Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
17 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
• All construction material and fill shall be stored and contained in a designated area that is located as far away as possible from the creeks to prevent transport of materials into the creeks.
• No litter, debris, or side cast shall be dumped or permitted to enter creeks.
• During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall be properly contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris shall be removed from work areas.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Accidental Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources If any suspected TCRs or resources of cultural significance to UAIC, including but not limited to features, anthropogenic/cultural soils, cultural belongings or objects (artifacts), shell, bone, shaped stones or bone, or ash/charcoal deposits are discovered by any person during construction activities including ground disturbing activities, all work shall pause immediately within 100 feet of the find, or an agreed upon distance based on the project area and nature of the find. Work shall cease in and within the immediate vicinity of the find regardless of whether the construction is being actively monitored by a Tribal Monitor, cultural resources specialist, or professional archaeologist.

A Tribal Representative and the City shall be immediately notified, and the Tribal Representative in coordination with the City shall determine if the find is a TCR (PRC Section 21074) and the Tribal Representative shall make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary.

Immediately upon
discovery.

UAIC Tribal
Monitor, Cultural
Resources
Specialist, or
Professional
Archaeologist;
Construction
Contractor; City
Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
18 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
Treatment and Documentation:
• The culturally affiliated Tribe shall consult with the City to (1) identify the boundaries of the new TCR and (2) if feasible, identify appropriate preservation in place and avoidance measures, including redesign or adjustments to the existing construction process, and long-term management, or 3) if avoidance is infeasible, a reburial location in proximity of the find where no future disturbance is anticipated.

Permanent curation of TCRs will not take place unless approved in writing by the culturally affiliated Tribe.
• The construction contractor(s) shall provide secure, on-site storage for culturally sensitive soils or objects that are components of TCRs that are found or recovered during construction. Only Tribal Representatives shall have access to the storage. Storage size shall be determined by the nature of the TCR and can range from a small lock box to a conex box (shipping container). A secure (locked), fenced area can also provide adequate on-site storage if larger amounts of material must be stored.
• The construction contractor(s) and City shall facilitate the respectful reburial of the culturally sensitive soils or objects. This includes providing a reburial location that is consistent with the Tribe’s preferences, excavation of the reburial location, and assisting with the reburial, upon request.
• Any discoveries shall be documented on a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 form within two weeks of the discovery and submitted to the appropriate CHRIS center in a timely manner.

Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
19 ITEM 10

Mitigation Measure Monitoring/ Reporting/
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Timing Responsible Party Initials Date
• Work at the TCR discovery location shall not resume until authorization is granted by the City in coordination with the culturally affiliated Tribe. • If articulated or disarticulated human remains, or human remains in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness are discovered during construction activities, the County Coroner and the culturally affiliated Tribe shall be contacted immediately. Upon determination by the County Coroner that the find is Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission will assign the Most Likely Descendent who will work with the project proponent to define appropriate treatment and disposition of the burials.

Citrus Heights Creek Erosion and Bridge Scour Protection Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program May 2026
20 ITEM 10