02 2024-11 Cameron Creek Final IS-MND_v2 — Visalia City Council, November 18, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

Commercial Version -- Dated May, 3 2024 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 11/3/2024
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Caulanthus californicus
California jewelflower
PDBRA31010
Endangered
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
Chrysis tularensis
Tulare cuckoo wasp
IIHYM72010
None
None
G1G2
S2
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo
ABNRB02022
Threatened
Endangered
G5T2T3
S1
Delphinium recurvatum
recurved larkspur
PDRAN0B1J0
None
None
G2?
S2
1B.2
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
IICOL48011
Threatened
None
G3T3
S3
Diplacus pictus
calico monkeyflower
PDSCR1B240
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
Tipton kangaroo rat
AMAFD03152
Endangered
Endangered
G3T1T2
S2
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
ARAAD02030
Proposed
Threatened
None
G3G4
S3
SSC
Eryngium spinosepalum
spiny-sepaled button-celery
PDAPI0Z0Y0
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat
AMACD02011
None
None
G4G5T4
S3S4
SSC
Euphorbia hooveri
Hoover's spurge
PDEUP0D150
Threatened
None
G1
S1
1B.2
Fritillaria striata
striped adobe-lily
PMLIL0V0K0
None
Threatened
G1
S1
1B.1
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
CTT61430CA
None
None
G1
S1.1
Helianthus winteri
Winter's sunflower
PDAST4N260
None
None
G2?
S2?
1B.2
Imperata brevifolia
California satintail
PMPOA3D020
None
None
G3
S3
2B.1
Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
ABPBR01030
None
None
G4
S4
SSC
Lasthenia chrysantha
alkali-sink goldfields
PDAST5L030
None
None
G2
S2
1B.1
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Coulter's goldfields
PDAST5L0A1
None
None
G4T2
S2
1B.1
Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
ICBRA10010
Endangered
None
G3
S3
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
ICBRA06010
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
Lithobates pipiens
northern leopard frog
AAABH01170
None
None
G5
S2
SSC
Report Printed on Thursday, May 30, 2024

Page 2 of 3 ends

Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Lytta hoppingi
Hopping's blister beetle
IICOL4C010
None
None
G1G2
S2
Lytta molesta
molestan blister beetle
IICOL4C030
None
None
G2
S2
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
CTT44120CA
None
None
G1
S1.1
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA
None
None
G3
S3.1
Orcuttia inaequalis
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
PMPOA4G060
Threatened
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
Pseudobahia peirsonii
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
PDAST7P030
Threatened
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
PMPOA53110
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
Rana boylii pop. 5
foothill yellow-legged frog - south Sierra DPS
AAABH01055
Endangered
Endangered
G3T2
S2
Rhaphiomidas trochilus
San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly
IIDIP05010
None
None
G1
S1
Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
PMALI040Q0
None
None
G3
S3
1B.2
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
AAABF02020
Proposed
Threatened
None
G2G3
S3S4
SSC
Sycamore Alluvial Woodland
Sycamore Alluvial Woodland
CTT62100CA
None
None
G1
S1.1
Talanites moodyae
Moody's gnaphosid spider
ILARA98020
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
Tuctoria greenei
Greene's tuctoria
PMPOA6N010
Endangered
Rare
G1
S1
1B.1
Valley Sacaton Grassland
Valley Sacaton Grassland
CTT42120CA
None
None
G1
S1.1
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
AMAJA03041
Endangered
Threatened
G4T2
S3
Record Count: 56
Report Printed on Thursday, May 30, 2024

Page 3 of 3 ends

Appendices

Appendix C: IPAC SPECIES LIST
06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:

Project Code: 2024-0098238
Project Name: Cameron Creek

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
2 of 8
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultation- handbook.pdf
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/what- we-do.

The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.

In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation- migratory-birds.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
3 of 8
▪
Attachment(s):

Official Species List

OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
4 of 8

PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2024-0098238
Project Name: Cameron Creek
Project Type: Water Supply Facility - New Constr
Project Description: The proposed Project is for construction of three check structures in Cameron Creek to utilize the Creek as a linear recharge facility. The total area of potential effect covered under CEQA would be approximately 8 acres.

Project Location:

The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@36.29829695,-119.26089036054393,14z Counties: Tulare County, California
Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
5 of 8

1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 11 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
6 of 8

MAMMALS

NAME STATUS
Buena Vista Lake Ornate Shrew Sorex ornatus relictus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1610
Endangered
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2873
Endangered
Tipton Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7247
Endangered
BIRDS

NAME STATUS
California Condor Gymnogyps californianus
Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8193
Endangered

REPTILES

NAME STATUS
Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/625
Endangered
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed
Threatened

AMPHIBIANS

NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed
Threatened

INSECTS
Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
7 of 8

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

CRUSTACEANS

NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened

FLOWERING PLANTS

NAME STATUS
Lassics Lupine Lupinus constancei
Population:

There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7976
Endangered

CRITICAL HABITATS

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HA VE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.

Project code: 2024-0098238 06/01/2024 00:11:59 UTC
8 of 8

IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Private Entity
Name: Jenny McCarthy
Address: 1800 30th Street, Suite 280
City: Bakersfield
State: CA
Zip: 93308
Email [email protected]
Phone: 7073842510
Appendices

Appendix D: NRCS WEB SOIL

SURVEY REPORT
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Tulare County,
Western Part,
California
Cameron Creek
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
May 30, 2024
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Tulare County, Western Part, California..........................................................13 122—Grangeville sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes....................13 References............................................................................................................15 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4019100 4019500 4019900 4020300 4020700 4021 100 4021500 4021900 4019100 4019500 4019900 4020300 4020700 4021 100 4021500 4021900 296800 297200 297600 298000 298400 298800 299200 299600 300000 300400 300800 301200 296800 297200 297600 298000 298400 298800 299200 299600 300000 300400 300800 301200 36° 19' 18'' N
119° 15' 51'' W
36° 19' 18'' N
119° 12' 48'' W
36° 17' 42'' N
119° 15' 51'' W
36° 17' 42'' N
119° 12' 48'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 1000 2000 4000 6000
Feet
0 300 600 1200 1800
Meters
Map Scale: 1:20,900 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Tulare County, Western Part, California Survey Area Data: Version 17, Aug 31, 2023
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 16, 2022—May 30, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 122 Grangeville sandy loam,
drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes

8.0 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 8.0 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Custom Soil Resource Report
11 An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Tulare County, Western Part, California
122—Grangeville sandy loam, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hp4s
Elevation: 190 to 400 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Map Unit Composition
Grangeville and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Grangeville
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex, linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granitic rock sources Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 16 inches: sandy loam
Bg - 16 to 27 inches: sandy loam
2C - 27 to 67 inches: stratified loamy sand to silt loam Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Gypsum, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 4.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 1
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R017XY906CA - Non-Alkali San Joaquin Valley Desert Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Minor Components
Tujunga
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Yettem
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Grangeville, saline-sodic
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: Yes
Hanford
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Nord
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Ecological site: R017XY904CA - Subirrigated Deep Alluvial Fans Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 15 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
16 Appendices

Appendix E: NMFS EFH MAPPER

EFH Mapper Report
EFH Data Notice
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by textual descriptions contained in the fishery management plans developed by the regional fishery management councils. In most cases mapping data can not fully represent the complexity of the habitats that make up EFH. This report should be used for general interest queries only and should not be interpreted as a definitive evaluation of EFH at this location. A location-specific evaluation of EFH for any official purposes must be performed by a regional expert. Please refer to the following links for the appropriate regional resources.

West Coast Regional Office
EFH
No additional Essential Fish Habitats (EFH) were identified at the report location.

Pacific Salmon EFH
No Pacific Salmon Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) were identified at the report location.

Atlantic Salmon
No Atlantic Salmon were identified at the report location.

HAPCs
No Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) were identified at the report location.

EFH Areas Protected from Fishing
No EFH Areas Protected from Fishing (EFHA) were identified at the report location.

Spatial data does not currently exist for all the managed species in this area. The following is a list of species or management units for which there is no spatial data. **For links to all EFH text descriptions see the complete data inventory: open data inventory --> Pacific Coastal Pelagic Species,
Jack Mackerel,
Pacific (Chub) Mackerel,
Pacific Sardine,
Northern Anchovy - Central Subpopulation,
Northern Anchovy - Northern Subpopulation,
Pacific Highly Migratory Species,
Bigeye Thresher Shark - North Pacific,
Bluefin Tuna - Pacific,
Dolphinfish (Dorado or Mahimahi) - Pacific,
Pelagic Thresher Shark - North Pacific,
Swordfish - North Pacific
Appendices
Cameron Creek Linear Recharge Project
November 2024 C-1
Appendix C: Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey

CLASS III INVENTORY/PHASE I SURVEY,

CAMERON CREEK CHECK STRUCTURE LINEAR

RECHARGE PROJECT,

TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

Briza Sholars
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
455 W. Fir Avenue
Clovis, CA 93611

Prepared by:

Peter A. Carey, M.A., RPA,

Dustin Merrick, M.A., RPA,

and

Sarah Stringer-Bowsher, M.A., RPH

ASM Affiliates
4800 Stockdale Hwy, Ste 405
Bakersfield, CA 93309

September 2024
PN 36510.64

Table of Contents
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ......................................................................................... v

1. INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY CONTEXT ...................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ 1

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ...................... 5

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 6

1.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 ................................................... 6

1.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................. 7

1.3.3 California Register of Historical Resources Significance Criteria ....................... 8

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND ............................ 11

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND AND GEOARCHAEOLOGY ................... 11

2.1.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 11

2.1.2 Geology and Geomorphology ............................................................................. 11

2.1.3 Soils ..................................................................................................................... 11

2.1.4 Buried Site Sensitivity ........................................................................................ 12

2.2 ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 19

2.3 PRE-CONTACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ...................................... 20

2.4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND................................................................................ 23

2.4.1 Tulare Irrigation District ..................................................................................... 24

2.4.2 Cameron Creek.................................................................................................... 26

2.5 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS .................. 37

3. ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCHES ........... 41

3.1 ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................ 41

3.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCE WITHIN THE APES ............................ 43 Cameron Creek (P-54-004877) .................................................................................... 43 SCE Big Creek Hydroelectric System, East & West 220kV Transmission Line (P -54- 004832) ........................................................................................................................ 43 Wylie Hinds Ranch (P-54-003229) .............................................................................. 44

3.3 SACRED LANDS FILE ............................................................................................. 44

4. METHODS AND RESULTS ............................................................................... 45

4.1 FIELD METHODS ..................................................................................................... 45

4.2 SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................. 45

4.2.1 Built Environment Results .................................................................................. 45

4.2.2 Archaeological Results........................................................................................ 51

5. SUMMARY, EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 53

5.1 EVALUATION........................................................................................................... 53

5.2 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ................................................................................... 56

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONs............................................................................................. 57 Table of Contents
ii ASM Affiliates
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 59

CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES
Appendix A: Construction Drawings
Confidential Appendix B: Records Search and Sacred Lands File Searches Confidential Appendix C: DPR Forms
Confidential Appendix D: Friant-Kern Canal evaluation and SHPO concurrence

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1. APE locations of the three segments and measurement locations, Tulare County, California. ................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. APE locations of the three segments included in the Project, Tulare County, California. ............................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Geological Overview of the APE. ...................................................................... 13 Figure 4a. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE. .................................................................... 14 Figure 4b. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE. .................................................................... 15 Figure 4c. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE. .................................................................... 16 Figure 4d. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE. .................................................................... 17 Figure 4e. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE. .................................................................... 18 Figure 5. A 1929 location and boundary map of irrigation districts in Tulare and lower Kings counties. Source: Adams 1929, Plate XXVI. .............................. 29 Figure 6. Tulare Irrigation District service area map, 2022. .......................................... 30 Figure 7. An 1885 irrigation map that also identifies the alignment of the Kaweah River, St. Johns Channel, associated creeks, and canals, including Cameron Creek. Source: Hammond 1885. ....................................................... 31 Figure 8. Excerpt from 1892 atlas map for T18S R25E that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek. Source: Thompson 1892a. .............................. 32 Figure 9. Excerpt from 1892 atlas map for T19S R25E that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: Thompson 1892b. ................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 10. An excerpt from a 1926 USGS topographical map that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USGS 1926. ....... 34 Figure 11. An excerpt from a 1950 USGS topographical map that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USGS 1950. ....... 35 Figure 12. A 1956 aerial photograph that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USDA 1956. .............................................. 36 Figure 13. Lovers Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing west. ........................ 46 Figure 14. Rector Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing southwest. ............... 47 Figure 15. Measurement Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing north, northeast. ............................................................................................................. 48 Figure 16. County Bridge at Road 148, facing northeast. ................................................. 49 Figure 17. Transmission Corridor (P-54-004832), facing south, southeast. .................... 50 Figure 18. TID Turnout, facing north, northwest. ............................................................. 51

Table of Contents
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project iii

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 1. Previous Reports ................................................................................................. 41 Table 2. Previously Recorded Resources ......................................................................... 42

Management Summary
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project v

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
An intensive Class III cultural resources inventory/Phase I survey was conducted for the Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project (Project), Tulare County, California. The Project is within Tulare County, approximately 6 to 8 miles (mi.) east of the incorporated city of Tulare.

This places the Project on the open flats of the San Joaquin Valley. Specifically, the Project is within Section 36, Township 19 South, Range 25 East (T19S/R25E) and Sections 2 and 3 T18S/R25E, Mount Diablo Base and Meri dian (MDBM), as depicted on the Visalia and Exeter topographic maps. The proposed Project site consists of water conveyance features and agricultural fields adjacent to unpaved and paved roads. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Project is approximately 16.1 acres (ac.). This includes all construction staging and access areas needed for construction equipment. The vertical APE, defined as the maximum depth of excavation for the Project, is 3 ft. (ft.)

ASM Affiliates (ASM) conducted this study, with Director Peter A. Carey, M.A., RPA, serving as principal investigator. Senior Archaeologist Dustin Merrick, M.A., RPA was a contributing author of this report. Sarah Stringer -Bowsher, M.A., RPH, prepared the site- specific history and completed the evaluation and assessment of impacts for the built resources . The study was undertaken to assist with compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

To determine whether the Project APE had been previously surveyed for cultural resources, and/or whether any such resources were known to exist within or near to it, staff of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) conducted an archival records search on June 10 24, 2024. According to the SSJVIC, three previous studies (TU -01383, TU-01690, TU-1966) have been conducted within the Project APE. Approximately five percent of the Project APE has been previously studied. An additional 12 previous studies were identified within the 0.5- mi. buffer.

The SSJVIC data identified three previously recorded cultural resources (P -54-003229, P -54- 004832, and P -54-004877) within the APE. An additional 13 previously recorded cultural resources were identified within 0.5 mi. of the Project APE. The closest of these resources is less than 0.1 mi. from the Project APE.

As part of the CEQA process, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted to request a list of Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project APE, as well as a Sacred Lands File (SLF). On June 10, 2024, the NAHC responded with negative SLF results and 21 Tribal contacts from 11 Tribes. Outreach letters were mailed and emailed to all listed Tribes on July 29, 2024. No responses were received.

The Class III inventory/Phase I survey fieldwork was conducted on July 30, 2024, with parallel transects spaced at maximum 15-meter (m) intervals walked throughout the Project APE. Much of the Project APE appears to have been disturbed to create the extant water conveyance features and roads. Due to the previous disturbances, ground surface visibility within the APE was excellent (greater than 95 percent) except for the portions of the water conveyance features that were filled with water for the Class III inventory/Phase I survey. Soils consisted of tan to brown sandy loam throughout the Project APE. Non- native vegetation inhibited visibility. Modern refuse including Management Summary
vi ASM Affiliates
plastic buckets, milled lumber, plastic sheeting, concrete fragments, and a mattress were observed.

No archaeological resources of any kind were identified within the Project APE.

The APE includes three segments of Cameron Creek, which functions as part of Tulare Irrigation District’s system as well as other irrigation districts. The entire Tulare Irrigation District has not been recorded or evaluated, which includes Cameron Creek, but it is clear that the Tulare Irrigation District system is critical to agricultural and community development in Tulare County. Therefore, for the purposes of this Project, ASM recommends that the segments of Cameron Creek (P -54- 004877) within the APE are assumed eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criteri a A/1 for association with significant local historical events, namely the development of agriculture and population growth in Tulare County.

As a result of the physical effects and impacts to the segments of the segments of Cameron Creek within the three APEs, ASM recommends a finding of no adverse effect under Section 106 of the NHPA and less-than-significant impact under CEQA . It is further recommended that, in the unlikely event that cultural resources are identified during Project construction, work be halted within a 100-ft. radius of the find and a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the newly discovered resource. Appropriate project conditions and mitigation measures should be adopted by the lead agency to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant.

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 1

1. INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
ASM Affiliates (ASM) was retained by the Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group to conduct an intensive Class III inventory/Phase I survey for the Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project (Project), located approximately 6 to 8 miles (mi.) east of the City of Tulare , Tulare County, California (Figure 1). The study was undertaken to assist with compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The investigation was conducted, specifically, to ensure that significant impacts or adverse effects to historic properties or histor ical resources do not occur as a result of Project construction.

This study included:
• A background records search and literature review to determine i f any known cultural resources were present in the Project zone and/or whether the area had been previously and systematically studied by archaeologists;
• An on- foot, intensive inventory of the Project site to identify and record previously undiscovered cultural resources and to examine known sites; and • A preliminary assessment of any such resources found within the subject property.

Peter A. Carey, M.A ., RPA, served as principal investigator , and ASM Assistant Archaeologist Daniel Ware, B.A., conducted the fieldwork. Dustin Merrick, M.A., RPA , was a contributing author of this report. Sarah Stringer-Bowsher, M.A., RPH, prepared the site-specific history, and completed the evaluation and assessment of impacts for the built resources.

This document constitutes a report on the Class III inventory/Phase I survey. Subsequent chapters provide background to the investigation, including historic context studies; the findings of the archival records search; a summary of the field surveying techniques employed; and the results of the fieldwork. We conclude with management recommendations for the Project.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is within Tulare County, approximately 6 to 8 miles (mi.) east of the City of Tulare .

The Project sites are on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 158 -040-019 and 158-040-004. This places the Project on the open flats of the San Joaquin Valley. Specifically, the Project is within Section 36, Township 19 South, Range 25 East (T19S/R25E) and Sections 2 and 3 (T18S/R25E) , Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDBM), as depicted on the Visalia and Exeter topographic maps. The proposed Project site consists of water conveyance features adjacent to unpaved and paved roads.

Elevations within the P roject area, which is mostly flat, range from 335 ft. (ft.) above mean sea level (amsl) to 360 ft. amsl.

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 3

Figure 1. APE locations of the three segments and measurement locations, Tulare County, California.

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
4 ASM Affiliates

Figure 2. APE locations of the three segments included in the Project, Tulare County, California.

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 5

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AREA OF POTENTIAL

EFFECTS
Project Background and Purpose
The City of Visalia (City) is looking to construct new check structures in Cameron Creek to utilize the Creek as a linear recharge facility. The proposed Project’s goal is to increase groundwater recharge through linear water pools that will percolate over time to recharge the groundwater aquifer in the vicinity of the City limits.

This proposed Project was conceived through a cooperative program for groundwater management between the City of Visalia, Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District (KDWCD), and Tulare Irrigation District (TID). The proposed Project was further refined through a reconnaissance study conducted in 2010. The study included a pool capacity analysis that was performed on several sections within Cameron Creek. This study has guided some of the check structure location, however, through coordination with KDWCD and TID, the potential check structure locations were selected based upon access and operability.

The proposed Project is being funded by the California Department of Water Resources through the Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant program.

Project Description
The proposed Project proposes to construct up to three (3) reinforced concrete check structure facilities within Cameron Creek. All check structures would be equipped with automatic gates capable of passing high flows (250 cfs) while maintaining high water levels in the channel making Cameron Creek a linear recharge basin. The three intermittent sections of Cameron Creek that are included in the proposed Project begin at the Cameron Creek diversion from Tulare Irrigation District’s Main Intake Canal (MIC) east of Road 156 and end at the intersection of Lovers Lane and Caldwell Avenue.

For each of the three check structures , it is anticipated that excavation in the creek channel and embankment would reach approximately 65 ft. horizontally at a depth of about 10 ft. from channel top (excavation from channel bottom will likely be only 2–3 ft.). Excavation for construction would only be the amount necessary for constructing the structures. Once completed, excavated soil would be backfilled around the structure and the channel prism re -graded to match existing conditions. No material export is anticipated, and earthwork will be balanced on site. The proposed Measurement Check APE does not include the Main Intake Canal.

The Area of P otential Effect (APE) for the Project site is approximately 16.1 acres (ac.). This includes all construction staging and access areas needed for construction equipment. The vertical APE, defined as the maximum depth of excavation for the check structures , is not expected to exceed 3 ft. Construction drawings for both locations are available in Appendix A

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
6 ASM Affiliates

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT

1.3.1 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
NHPA Section 106 is applicable to federal undertakings, including Projects financed or permitted by federal agencies regardless of whether the activities occur on federally managed or privately owned land. Its purpose is to determine whether adverse effects will occur to significant cultural resources, defined as “historical properties” that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for NRHP eligibility are defined at 36 CFR § 60.4 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 that:
(A) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(B) are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (C) 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) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

There are, however, restrictions on the kinds of historical properties that can be NRHP listed.

These have been identified by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), as follows:

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties prim arily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet th e criteria or if they fall within the following categories:

(a) A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or
(b) A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or
(c) A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life.

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 7 (d) A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or
(e) A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or (f) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or (g) A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. (ACHP n.d.)

Integrity
A site must have integrity and meet one of the four criteria of eligibility to demonstrate its historic associations in order to convey its significance. A property must be associated with one or more events important in history or prehistory to be considered for listing under Criterion A.

Additionally, the specific association of the property itself must also be considered significant.

Criterion B applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. Properties significant for their physical design or construction under Criterion C must have features with characteristics that exemplify such elements as architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and artwork. Criterion D most commonly applies to properties that have the potential to answer, in whole or in part, important research questions about human history that can only be answered by the actual physical materials of cultural resources. A property eligible under Criterion D must demonstrate the potential to contain information relevant to the prehistory and history (National Register Bulletin 15).

A district, site, building, structure, or object may also be eligible for consideration as a historic property if that property meets the criteria considerations for properties generally less than 50 years old, in addition to possessing integrity and meeting the criteria for evaluation.

1.3.2 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is applicable to discretionary actions by state or local lead agencies. Under CEQA, lead agencies must analyze impacts to cultural resources. Significant impacts under CEQA occur when “historically significant” or “unique” cultural resources are adversely affected, which occurs when such resources could be altered or destroyed through Project implementation. Historically significant cultural resources are defined by eligibility for or by listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) . In practice, the federal NRHP criteria (below) for significance applied under Section 106 are generally (although not entirely) consistent with CRHR criteria (see PRC § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852 and § 15064.5(a)(3)).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines historical resources as:

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
8 ASM Affiliates

1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CRHR (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).

2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, mi litary, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (Pub.

Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 14 CCR, Section 4852)

4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Unique resources under CEQA are those that represent:

An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC § 21083.2(g)).

Preservation in place is the preferred approach under CEQA to mitigating adverse impacts to significant or unique cultural resources.

1.3.3 California Register of Historical Resources Significance Criteria The CRHR program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local

1. Introduction and Regulatory Context
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 9 planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. The criteria established for eligibility for the CRHR are directly comparable to the NRHP criteria.

To be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a resource must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet at least one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. For the purposes of eligibility for CRHR, integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance” (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001). This general definition is strengthened by the more specific definition offered by the NRHP —the criteria and guidelines on which the CRHR criteria and guidelines are based upon. In 2012, the California Off ice of Historic Preservation clarified that the intent of the CRHR regulations is to be the same as the NRHP (California Department of Transportation 2012).

1. 2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 11

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL

BACKGROUND

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND AND

GEOARCHAEOLOGY

2.1.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area is directly south of the city of Visalia, California, in the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Bisected by Cameron Creek, the APE includes three segments: 1) Lovers Check Segment, 2) Rector Check Segment, and 3) Measurement Check Segment (Figure 1 ). These segments are located within three miles of each other and are associated with alluvial fans and floodplain deposits. The average elevation of the APE is approximately 331 ft. (ft.) above sea level with slopes ranging from zero to two percent. Bisected by Cameron Creek, the APE consists of the active channel and adjacent agricultural fields that flank the channel. As outlined below, soils in the Project area formed between the Historic era/modern times (<150 years before present [YBP]) and the late Holocene (4000–2000 YBP).

2.1.2 Geology and Geomorphology
The San Joaquin Valley consists of an asymmetric structural trough that is bounded to the west by the Coast Range, and to the east by the Sierra Nevada Range. As exhibited in Figure 3, the APE is in the eastern portion of the valley and is marked by extensive deposits of Quaternary alluvium.

Great alluvial fans originating from the Sierra Nevada Range flank the eastern portion of the valley, delivering particles of granite, schist, quartzite, and other minerals eroded by glaciers and fluvial processes (Arro ues et al. 2020:04). Post Euro- American developments including agricultural expansion, channelization, and levee construction have caused dramatic landscape changes in the San Joaquin Valley (Klingler and Dalldorf 2023:03). As discussed below, the soils mapped in the APE exhibit a fair degree of surface disturbance due to agricultural activities, which could obscure archaeological visibility at the surface.

2.1.3 Soils
Soils in the APE were identified through the US Department of Agriculture’s National Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS 2019) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) soil data. Soils in the APE consist of alluvial deposits ranging in age from Historic era/mo dern (<150 YBP) to the late Holocene (4000–2000 Y BP). The dates provided below originate from Meyer et al. (2010:

Appendix C). Soil types accounting for less than three percent of the APE were not included. Soil map are as follows:

• Grangeville; (Latest Holocene; 2000–1000 YBP);
• Tujunga; (Historic era to modern; <150 YBP);
• Yettem; (Late Holocene; 4000–2000 YBP);

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
12 ASM Affiliates
Soils in the APE consist of young to very young soils formed in alluvium derived from granite sources. The Grangeville soil series, which accounts for 90 percent of the study area, is marked by Ap1/Ap2 horizons that extend to a depth of 41 centimeters below surface (cmbs) (USDA -NRCS 2019). An Ap horizon is defined as a layer of soil that parallels the earth’s surface, and is denoted by anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., agricultural ploughing). In short, soils that flank Cameron Creek are young and marked by recent disturbance via agricultural activities.

2.1.4 Buried Site Sensitivity
Traditional methods used to locate precontact sites (i.e., pedestrian survey, shovel scrapes) are not capable of detecting buried archaeological deposits because their scope of investigation is limited to the surface of selected landforms. In the Project APE, the majority of soils at the surface belong to the Grangeville series, which formed during the latest Holocene (2000–1000 Y BP). As such, cultural materials pre-dating the latest Holocene are unlikely to be represented at the surface. In addition, the upper 41 cmbs of the APE exhibits Ap1/Ap2 soil horizons, which denotes a fair degree of disturbance at/near the surface. This indicates that the surface of the APE does not necessarily reflect the deposits that extend into the lower portions of the vertical APE.

Based on these data, the Project APE is mapped as having high buried site sensitivity, with limited archaeological visibility at or near the surface (Figure s 4a through 4e). Construction activities in the active channel are less likely to impact archaeological deposits because of the active nature of the channel. However, the deposits on either side of the channel have high buried site potential.

As stated above, the Project would be constructed within the canal channel and embankments.

Therefore, the disturbance of buried archaeological deposits during Project activities is considered unlikely.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 13

Figure 3. Geological Overview of the APE.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
14 ASM Affiliates

Figure 4a. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 15

Figure 4b. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
16 ASM Affiliates

Figure 4c. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 17

Figure 4d. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
18 ASM Affiliates

Figure 4e. Buried Site Sensitivity of the APE.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 19

2.2 ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND
Penutian-speaking Yokuts tribal groups occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley region and much of the nearby Sierra Nevada. Ethnographic information about the Yokuts was collected primarily by Powers (1971, 1976 [originally 1877]), Kroeber (1925), Gayton (1930, 1948), Driver (1937), and Harrington (n.d.). For a variety of historical reasons, existing research information emphasizes the central Yokuts tribes which occupied both the valley and particularly the foot.hills of the Sierra Nevada. The northernmost tribes suffered from the influx of Euro Americans during the Gold Rush and their populations were in substantial decline by the time ethnographic studies began in the early twentieth century. In contrast, the southernmost tribes were partially removed by the Spanish to missions and eventually absorbed into multi-tribal communities on the Sebastian Indian Reservation (on Tejon Ranch), and later the Tule River Reservation and Santa Rosa Rancheria to the north. The result is a scarcity of ethnographic detail on southern Valley tribes, especially in relation to the rich information collected from the central foothills tribes where native speakers of the Yokuts dialects are still found. Regardless, the general details of indigenous lifeways were similar across the broad expanse of Yokuts territory, particularly in terms of environmentally influenced subsistence and adaptation and with regard to religion and belief, which were similar everywhere.

Following Kroeber (1925: Plate 47), the City of Visalia region lies in a contact zone between a series of Yokuts tribal groups. Kroeber places the Chunut to the south of the Project APE, along Tulare Lake, the Choinok to the southeast, Wolasi to the northeast along Cameron Creek, and the Telamni further north, near Visalia. No historic villages are recorded in the immediate Project area by Kroeber (1925).

The Yokuts settlement pattern was largely consistent, regardless of specific tribe involved. Winter villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses (as these existed circa 150 YBP), with dispersal phase family camps at elevated spots on the valley floor and near gathering areas in the foothills.

Most Yokuts groups, again regardless of specific tribal affiliation, were organized as a recognized and distinct tribelet, a circumstance that almost certainly pertained to the tribal groups noted above.

Tribelets were land -owning groups organized around a central village and linked by shared territory and descent from a common ancestor. The population of most tribelets ranged from about 150 to 500 people (Kroeber 1925).

Each tribelet was headed by a chief who was aided by a variety of assistants, the most important of whom was the winatum , a herald or messenger and assistant chief. A shaman also served as religious officer. While shamans did not have any direct political authority, as Gayton (1930) has illustrated, they maintained substantial influence within their tribelet.

Shamanism is a religious system common to many Native American tribes. It involves a direct and personal relationship between the individual and the supernatural world enacted by entering a trance or hallucinatory state (usually through the ingestion of psychotropic plants, such as jimsonweed or more typically native tobacco). Shamans were considered individuals with an unusual degree of supernatural power, serving as healers or curers, diviners, and controllers of

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
20 ASM Affiliates
natural phenomena (such as rain or thunder). Shamans also produced the rock art of this region, depicting the visions they experienced in vision quests believed to represent their spirit helpers and events in the supernatural realm (Whitley 1992, 2000).

The centrality of shamanism to the religious and spiritual life of the Yokuts was demonstrated by the role of shamans in the yearly ceremonial round. The ritual round, performed the same way each year, started in the spring with the jimsonweed ceremony, followed by rattlesnake dance and (where appropriate) first salmon ceremony. After returning from seed camps, fall rituals began in the late summer with the mourning ceremony, followed by first seed and acorn rites, and then bear dance (Gayton 1930:379). In each case, shamans served as ceremonial officials responsible for specific dances involving a display of their supernatural powers (Kroeber 1925).

Subsistence practices varied from tribelet to tribelet based on the environment of residence.

Throughout Native California, and Yokuts territory in general, the acorn was a primary dietary component, along with a variety of gathered seeds. Valley tribes augmented thi s resource with lacustrine and riverine foods, especially fish and wildfowl. As with many Native California tribes, the settlement and subsistence rounds included the winter aggregation into a few large villages, where stored resources (like aco rns) served as staples, followed by dispersal into smaller camps, often occupied by extended families, where seasonally available resources would be gathered and consumed.

Although population estimates vary and population size was greatly affected by the introduction of Euro -American diseases and social disruption, the Yokuts were one of the largest, most successful groups in Native California. Cook (1978) estimates that the Yokuts region contained 27 percent of the aboriginal population in the state at the time of contact; other estimates are even higher. Many Yokuts people continue to reside in the southern San Joaquin Valley today.

2.3 PRE-CONTACT ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
The southern San Joaquin Valley region has received minimal archaeological attention compared to other areas of the state. In part, this is because the majority of California archaeological work has been concentrated in the Sacramento Delta, Santa Barbara Channel, and central Mojave Desert areas (see Moratto 1984). Although knowledge of the region’s prehistory is limited, enough is known to determine that the archaeological record is broadly similar to south-central California as a whole (see Gifford and Schenk 1926; Hewes 1941; Wedel 1941; Fenenga 1952; Elsasser 1962; Fredrickson and Grossman 1977; Schiffman and Garfinkel 1981). Based on these sources, the general prehistory of the region can be outlined as follows.

Initial occupation of the region occurred at least as early as the Paleoindian Period, or prior to about 10,000 YBP. Evidence of early use of the region is indicated by characteristic fluted and stemmed points found around the margin of Tulare Lake, in the foothills of the Sierra, and in the Mojave Desert proper.

Both fluted and stemmed points are particularly common around lake margins, suggesting a terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene lakeshore adaptation similar to that found throughout western North America at the same time; little else is known about these earliest peoples. More than 250

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 21 fluted points have been recovered from the Witt Site (CA -KIN-32), located along the western shoreline of ancient Tulare Lake, west of the Project APE, demonstrating the importance of this early occupation in the San Joaquin Valley (see Fenenga 1993). Additional finds consist of a Clovis-like projectile point discovered in a flashflood cut-bank near White Oak Lodge in 1953 on Tejon Ranch (Glennan 1987a, 1987b). More recently, a similar fluted point was found near Bakersfield (Zimmerman et al. 1989), and a number are known from the Edwards Air Force Base and Boron area of the western Mojave Desert. Although human occupation of the state is well - established during the Late Pleistocene, relatively little can be inferred about the nature and distribution of this occupation with a few exceptions. First, little evidence exists to support the idea that people at that time were big -game hunters similar to those f ound on the Great Plains.

Second, the western Mojave Desert evidence suggests small, very mobile populations that left a minimal archaeological signature. The evidence from the ancient Tulare Lake shore, in contrast, suggests much more substantial population and settlements which, instead of relying on big-game hunting, were tied to the lacustrine lake edge. Variability in subsistence and settlement patterns is thus apparent in California, in contrast to the Great Plains.

Substantial evidence for human occupation across California, however, first occurs during the middle Holocene, roughly 7500 to 4000 YBP. This period is known as the Early Horizon, or alternatively as the Early Millingstone, along the Santa Barbara Channel. In the south, populations concentrated along the coast with minimal visible use of inland areas. Adaptation emphasized hard seeds and nuts with toolkits dominated by mullers and grindstones (manos and metates).

Additionally, little evidence for Early Horizon occupation exists in most inland portions of the state, partly due to a severe cold and dry paleoclimatic period occurring at this time, although a site deposit dating to this age has been identified along the ancient Buena Vista shoreline in Kern County to the south (Rosenthal et al. 2007). Regardless of specifics, Early Horizon population density was low with a subsistence adaptation more likely tied to plant food gathering than hunting.

Environmental conditions improved dramatically after about 4000 YBP during the Middle Horizon (or Intermediate Period). This period is known climatically as the Holocene Maximum (circa 3800 YBP) and was characterized by significantly warmer and wetter conditions than previously experienced. It was marked archaeologically by large population increase and radiation into new environments along coastal and interior south-central California and the Mojave Desert (Whitley 2000). In the Delta region to the north, this same period of favorable environmental conditions was characterized by the appearance of the Windmiller culture which exhibited a high degree of ritual elaboration (especially in burial practices) and perhaps even a rudimentary mound-building tradition (Meighan, personal communication, 1985). Along with ritual elaboration, Middle Horizon times experienced increasing subsistence specialization, perhaps correlating with the appearance of acorn processing technology. Penutian speaking peoples (including the Yokuts) are also posited to have entered the state roughly at the beginning of this period and, perhaps, to have brought this technology with them (cf. Moratto 1984). Likewise, it appears the so- called “Shoshonean Wedge ” in southern California, the Takic -speaking groups that include the Gabrielino/Fernandeño, Tataviam, and Kitanemuk, may have moved into the region at that time (Sutton 2009), rather than at about 1500 YBP as first suggested by Kroeber (1925).

Evidence for Middle Horizon occupation of interior south- central California is substantial. For example, in northern Los Angeles County along the upper Santa Clara River, to the south of the

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
22 ASM Affiliates
San Joaquin Valley, the Agua Dulce village complex indicates occupation extending back to the Intermediate Period, when the population of the village may have been 50 or more people (King et al. n.d.). Similarly, inhabitation of the Hathaway Ranch region, near Lake Piru, and the Newhall Ranch, near Valencia, appears to date to the Intermediate Period (W&S Consultants 1994). To the west, little or no evidence exists for pre -Middle Horizon occupation in the upper Sisquoc and Cuyama River drainages; populations first appear there at roughly 3500 YBP (Horne 1981). The Carrizo Plain, the valley immediately west of the San Joaquin, experienced a major population expansion during the Middle Horizon (W&S Consultants 2004; Whitley et al. 2007), and recently collected data indicates the Tehachapi Mountains region was first significantly occupied during the Middle Horizon (W&S Consultants 2006). A parallel can be drawn to the inland Ventura County region where a similar pattern has been identified (Whitley and Beaudry 1991), as well as the western Mojave Desert (Sutton 1988a, 1988b), the southern Sierra Nevada (W&S Consultants 1999), and the Coso Range region (Whitley et al. 1988). In all of these areas a major expansion in settlement, the establishment of large site complexes and an increase in the range of environments exploited appear to have occurred sometime roughly around 4,000 YBP. Although most efforts to explain this expansion have focused on local circumstances and events, it is increasingly apparent this was a major occurrence throughout southern California, and any explanation must be sought at a larger level of analysis (Whitley 2000). Additionally, evidence from the Carrizo Plain suggests the origins of the tribelet level of political organization developed during this period (W&S Consultants 2004; Whitley et al. 2007). Whether this same demographic process holds for the southern San Joaquin Valley, including the current Project APE, is yet to be determined.

The beginning of the Late Horizon is set variously at 1500 and 800 YBP, with a growing archaeological consensus for the shorter chronology. Increasing evidence suggests the importance of the Middle -Late Horizons transition (AD 800 to 1200) in the understanding of south- central California prehistory. This corresponds to the so-called Medieval Climatic Anomaly, followed by the Little Ice Age, and this general period of climatic instability extended to about AD 1860. It included major droughts matched by inter mittent “mega -floods,” and resulted in demographic disturbances across much of western North American (Jones et al. 1999). It is believed to have resulted in major population decline and abandonments across south-central California, involving as much as 90 percent of the interior populations in some regions, including the Carrizo Plain (Whitley et al. 2007). It is not clear whether site abandonment was accompanied by a true reduction in population or an agglomeration of the same numbers of people into fewer but larger villages in more favorable locations. Population along the Santa Barbara coast appears to have spiked at about the same time that it collapsed on the Carrizo Plain (Whitley et al. 2007). Along Buena Vista Lake, in Kern County, population appears to have been increasingly concentrated toward the later end of the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (Culleton 2006), and population intensification also appears to have occurred in the well -watered Tehachapi Mountains during this same period (W&S Consultants 2006).

What is clear is that Middle Period villages and settlements were widely dispersed across the south- central California landscape, including in the Sierra Nevada and the Mojave Desert. Many of these sites are found at locations that lack existing or historically known fresh water sources. Late Horizon sites, in contrast, are typically concentrated in areas where fresh water was available during the historical period, if not currently.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 23 One extensively studied site that shows evidence of intensive occupation during the Middle -Late Horizons transition (~1500-500 YBP) is the Redtfeldt Mound (CA-KIN-66/H), located west of the current Project APE, near the north shore of ancient Tulare Lake. There, Siefkin (1999) reported on human burials and a host of artifacts and ecofacts excavated from a modest -sized mound. He found that both Middle Horizon and Middle -Late Horizons transition occupations were more intensive than Late Horizon occupations, which were sporadic and less intensive (Siefkin 1999:110-111).

The Late Horizon can then be understood as a period of recovery from a major demographic collapse. One result is the development of regional archaeological cultures as the precursors to ethnographic Native California, suggesting that ethnographic lifeways recorded by anthropologists extend roughly 800 years into the past.

The position of southern San Joaquin Valley prehistory relative to patterns seen in surrounding areas is still somewhat unknown. The presence of large lake systems in the valley bottoms appears to have mediated some of the desiccation seen elsewhere. But, as the reconstruction of Soda Lake in the nearby Carrizo Plain demonstrates (see Whitley et al. 2007) environmental perturbations had serious impacts on lake systems too. Identifying certain prehistoric demographic trends for the southern San Joaquin Valle y, and determining how these trends (if present) correlate with those seen elsewhere, is a current important research objective.

2.4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Spanish explorers first visited the San Joaquin Valley in 1772, but its lengthy distance from the missions and presidios along the Pacific Coast delayed permanent settlement for many years, including during the Mexican period of control over the Californian region. In the 1840s, Mexican rancho owners along the Pacific Coast allowed their cattle to wander and graze in the San Joaquin Valley (JRP Historical Consulting 2009). The Mexican government granted the first ranchos in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley in the early 1840s, but these did not result in permanent settlement. It was not until the annexation of California in 1848 that the exploitation of the southern San Joaquin Valley began (Pacific Legacy 2006).

The discovery of gold in northern California in 1848 resulted in a dramatic increase of population, consisting in good part of fortune seekers and gold miners, who began to scour other parts of the state. After 1851, when gold was discovered in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in eastern Kern County, the population of the area grew rapidly. Some new immigrants began ranching in the San Joaquin Valley to supply the miners and mining towns. Ranchers grazed cattle and sheep, and farmers dry-farmed or used limited irrigation to grow grain crops, leading to the creation of small agricultural communities throughout the valley (JRP Historical Consulting 2009).

After the American annexation of California, the southern San Joaquin Valley became significant as a center of food production for this new influx of people in California. The expansive unfenced and principally public foothill spaces were well suited for grazing both sheep and cattle. As the Sierra Nevada gold rush presented extensive financial opportunities, ranchers introduced new breeds of livestock, consisting of cattle, sheep, and pig (Boyd 1997).

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
24 ASM Affiliates
With the increase of ranching in the southern San Joaquin Valley came the dramatic change in the landscape, as ranchers replaced native flora with non-native grasses that were more beneficial for grazing and pasture (Preston 1981). After the passing of Swamp Land Act, also known as the Arkansas Act, in 1850, farming began incrementally supplanting ranching as a more profitable enterprise as large tracts of land began to be reclaimed for agricultural use, aided in part by the extension of the railroad in the 1870s (Pacific Legacy 2006).

The Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads extended into Tulare County in the 1870s .

Deliberations among the major owners of the rail companies resulted in a decision that one large town would be developed in the approximate middle of each San Joaquin Valley county, to serve as county seat and railroad hub. The location of the City of Tulare was one such selected spot , placed at the intersection of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific r ailroads (Preston 1981). Prior to that time, this area had relatively few settlers due to the lack of surface water, with most Euro Americans settling either farther north and east, closer to the main branches of the Kaweah and Kings Rivers, or to the south and east, along the Tule River (Menafee and Dodge 1913). Irrigation in Tulare County
1 began in 1872 (Menafee and Dodge 1913:192).

Following the passage of the federal Homestead Act 1862 and the statewide “No-Fence” law in 1874, ranching practices began to decline, while farming expanded in the San Joaquin Valley in both large land holdings and smaller, subdivided properties (Robinson 1948). As the farming population grew, so did the demand for irrigation. During the period of reclaiming unproductive land in the southern San Joaquin Valley, grants were given to individuals who had both the resources and the finances to undertake the operation alone.

Three competing partnerships developed during this period which had a great impact on control of water, land reclamation and ultimately agricultural development in the San Joaquin Valley:

Livermore and Chester, Haggin and Carr, and Miller and Lux, perhaps the most famous of the enterprises (Morgan 1914). Miller and Lux ultimately became one of the biggest private property holders in the country, controlling the rights to more than 22,000 square mi. Miller and Lux’s impact extended far beyond Kern County, however. They recognized early on that control of water would have important economic implications, and they played a major role in the water development of the state. They controlled, for example, more than 100 mi. of the San Joaquin River with the San Joaquin and Kings River Canal and Irrigation System (Levine 2011).

The controversies associated with these endeavors and many others resulted in the Wright Act of 1887, which provided for the ownership of land and water as a collective rather than as separate rights. It further allowed the creation of irrigation districts comprised of local landowners.

2.4.1 Tulare Irrigation District
Local farmers recognized their precarious position as independent water rights users and the strength of water collectives that ultimately culminated in the support of the Wright Act of 1887 (Adams 1916:28). The first two districts created in Tulare County were the Alta Irrigation District, on the Kings River, and the Tulare Irrigation District (TID), which includes the Project APE (Preston 1981). The TID was organized on September 21, 1889. The original proposal for the

1 This included Kings County at that time.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 25 formation of an irrigation district covered 210,000 ac. that extended from the Sierra Nevada foothills to Tulare Lake. This was eventually reduced to 39,360 ac. (Figure 5) (Adams 1916:28).

In January 1948, the so -called “Kaweah Lands ” (approximately 11,000 ac.) were annexed. In October 1948, approximately 31,000 ac. previously served by the Packwood Canal Company were annexed to the TID (TID n.d.). Figure 6 shows the present-day boundaries of the TID.

The first waterworks that served the TID were the Kaweah Canal and Rocky Ford Canal (Adams 1916:29). Initially, $500,000 in bonds were issued with $250,000 paid for two canals: Settlers Canal and Kaweah Canal. The Main Canal was the first project of TID that also included construction of laterals (Adams 1916:28). Construction included diversion works on the St. Johns River, the main canal heading at the river (including a large flume over the river), together with the purchase of water rights of the Kaweah Canal and Irrigation Company, Rocky Ford Canal and Irrigation Company, and Settlers Ditch Company. The remainder was used for canal construction within the original TID boundaries. The 1893 depression caused f inancial difficulties—devalued agriculture prices prompted reduced or no crop planting, homeowners lost their homes, and businesses failed. The TID faltered as some questioned the legality of the TID’s organization and therefore the bonds collected under that organization. By 1895, many bondholders could not pay the TID assessment. During 1893- 1898, some water trickled through the canals , but TID operations fundamentally ceased. During this period, litigation over the bonds continued, and economic conditions in both Tulare and the surrounding country reflected the effects of a national depression (Adams 1916:28). In the early twentieth century, TID became more financially solvent and on October 17, 1903, bonds had been repaid. Thereafter, TID required only one assessment for system betterment in 1909 and all other assessments were replaced by water tolls ( Adams 1916:30; Adams 1929:246).

By the early 1900s, most irrigation water was supplied by rivers, creeks, and canals, but increasingly pump irrigation through wells supplemented the water supply. Deciduous trees and vineyards required only two seasonal irrigation deliveries until they matured and thereafter needed only one. While alfalfa required two or three seasonal deliveries , and citrus required a more frequent supply. Most of Tulare County agricultural land was cultivated vineyards of table grapes and grapes used for raisins, with citrus (largely navel oranges) on the rise for crop production as irrigation increased. Peaches were a predominant deciduous fruit crop. Dry farming of wheat and small grains was also prevalent. By 1909, the population in the county had grown to 35,000, which is attributable to railroads that facilitated agricultural transport and contributed to population growth ( Visalia Times -Delta 1909a , 1909b). Agricultural development significantly increased between 1913 and 1917. While only 100 ac . had been irrigated in 1913, four years later it had grown to more than 12,000 ac . Raisins and orchard crops produced the greatest revenue with significant production of wheat and grains. Cattle raising significantly contributed to the economy with lesser contribution from dairies (Tulare County Board of Trade 1917). By 1920, the population had a lmost doubled from 1909 (Tulare County Board of Trade 1939). In 1927, only 7,100 acres were irrigated directly by the TID with private pumping plants supplying an additional 15,000 acres. By 1927, 735 farming operations existed within the TID boundaries, primarily composed of 38 ac. properties with tw o large holdings of 2,800 ac. and 1,500 ac . (Adams 1929:246).

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
26 ASM Affiliates
Every decade from 1930 to 1990, the number of dairy cows increased as the dairy industry became an important economic driver for Tulare County (Schultz 2000). While Los Angeles ranked first as the “most productive” agricultural county in the U.S. between 1910 and 1949, Tulare County ranked second in California (Los Angeles Almanac 2024). By 1939, Tulare County was the fourth ranking agricultural county in the U.S. with oranges, grapes and raisins, cotton, cattle, and dairies as the largest revenue producers (Tulare County Board of Trade 1939). Population in the San Joaquin Valley grew exponentially between 1935 and 1940 with the population increase of 38.4 percent in Tulare County, 38.5 percent in Kings County, and 63.6 percent in Kern County (Regional Water Management Group, Kaweah River Basin 2017: 5-3). By 1945, much of the agricultural acreage was dedicated to truck crops though orchard crops and grapes continued to produce the highest revenue. Dairying outpaced livestock, and poultry production increased with cotton and alfalfa the highest-producing field crops (Hemphill 1945). By 1959, cotton and alfalfa remained the highest- producing field crops, but fruit crops produced the greatest revenue with grapes and raisin s maintaining the largest portion of that sector. Field crops outpaced livestock with apiary-related products a close second to field crops (Mankins 1959).

Agricultural expansion required a supplemental water supply that TID secured in a 1950 contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for an annual supply of 30,000 ac. ft. of Class 1 water, and up to 141,000 ac. ft. of Class 2 water from the Friant-Kern Canal. Subsequently, the TID proceeded with extensive improvements to the existing canal system, and the extension of the canal system to serve annexed areas. This work consisted of enlarging and/or relocating canals, construction of diversion structures, road crossings, check- gates, siphons, installing pipelines, etc. The majority of this work occurred between 1951-1964 (TID n.d.). Changes made to the MIC began after 1956 (USDA 1956). The TID and the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District formed the Kaweah River Power Authority (KRPA) in 1982. A 17MW hydroelectric power plant was constructed and went online in 1992, delivering power to the Southern California Edison Company (TID n.d.).

2.4.2 Cameron Creek
As part of the Sierra Nevada watershed, Cameron Creek was one of eight creeks that supplied water that irrigated thousands of acres in the San Joaquin Valley (Visalia Times-Delta 1909a). The southern side of the Kaweah Basin is fed by the Lower Kaweah River that conveys water primarily through three main distributive natural channels: Mill Creek, Packwood Creek, and Cameron Creek. Segments of Cameron Creek supported irrigation systems for the Lakeland Irrigation District and the Corcoran Irrigation District as well as the TID. An 1885 irrigation map shows a segment of the Kaweah River, St. Johns Channel, and associated creeks and canals, including Cameron Creek (Figure 7). The alignments in Figure 5 predate the TID. When the TID acquired extant canals and utilized creeks for its irrigation system, Cameron Creek wa s “one of the lesser delta channels of Kaweah River. It receives a portion of the flow of Deep Creek at a point about 6 miles due east from Visalia , and has a southwesterly course to Tulare Lake. It passes just to the northward of Tulare. An artificial channel at the head of this water way [ sic], constructed to improve its connection with Deep Creek, was closed by an order of court some years ago” (Grunsky 1898:14). At that time, Packwood Creek Canal was a primary canal that flowed in a southwesterly direction toward Tagus where the creek delivered water to a distribution system located southwest of Tagus. In the spring months, excess water flowed through Cameron Creek via the Deep Creek channels as well as Kaweah and Tulare canals, which the Cameron Creek

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 27 Company facilitated. The TID acquired the Cameron Creek Company facilities and integrated them into its system (Grunsky 1898:29).

Over time, Cameron Creek was channelized for more effective use by TID . During 1892–1925, significant improvements to the TID system included some channelization and realignment of Cameron Creek (Figure 8-10). It appears that at least some portions of Cameron Creek had a levee by 1900 ( Visalia Times 1900). The TID Canal intersected with Cameron Creek just east of the Measurement Check APE (Thompson 1892a, 1892b; USGS 1926). By the early 1920s, TID alternated between the Tulare Canal and Cameron Creek for conveyance and in 1924 Cameron Creek did not transport any water due to lack of water available ( Visalia Times-Delta 1925:4).

During 1929–1931 and 1933–1934, the Kaweah Basin experienced drought with only some water trickling through Cameron Creek and other creeks (Tulare Daily Times 1931). Conversely, in 1932 a hurricane caused massive flooding on Cameron Creek (Austin 2012: 27, 247 327). It appears that TID channelized Cameron Creek and , as part of that channelization , created levees as maintenance roads on both sides of Cameron Creek within the APEs beginning at the intersection with the TID Canal in the SW¼ of Section 36, T 18S, R25E between 192 6 and 1950 (Figure 11) (USGS 1950, 1952). Most likely the levee s were constructed in response to the 1932 flood. The 1955 flood was the most significant flood within written record as it overtook Cameron Creek, Packwood Creek, and Mill Creek but significantly affected Cameron Creek. Severe damage directly caused closure of the sawmill adjacent to Cameron Creek . Cameron Creek Colony was significantly flooded. Another flood in 1966 flooded agricultural land adjacent to Cameron Creek as well as Deep Creek, Outside Creek, and Cross Creek (Austin 2012:291, 308, 320). It is not clear who constructed the levees, but levees constructed on St. Johns River/Channel (a major waterway for the TID system), were constructed for flood control and were largely constructed without engineering design and ad hoc (Regional Water Management Group, Kaweah River Basin 2017:8- 5). Today, the historical levees within the APEs are not berms but instead flat and driveable maintenance roadways on either banks of the channelized Cameron Creek.

Sometime during 1926–1950, t he agricultural Cameron Creek Colony also developed between 1926 and 1950 along the southern side of Cameron Creek outside the APE in the SE¼ of Section 36, T18S, R25E and the SW¼ of Section 36, T18S, R26E . Within the three APE segments, t he TID rerouted only one segment of Cameron Creek between Road 148 and Road 152 north of Avenue 288 sometime during 1956–1969 as part of the TID’s major program of improving the system
2 (Figure 12) (USDA 1956, 1969; USGS 1950, 1952). By 1957, one segment of Cameron Creek was 15 ft. wide and approximately 10 ft. deep and water was flowing through it for the TID system (Tulare Advance-Register 1957:1).

2 It is important to note that TID’s first program of significant improvements was 1892- 1925. The second TID improvement program was completed during 1951-1964. The partially realigned segment within the Rector APE was completed within the second program of TID system improvements.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 29

Figure 5. A 1929 location and boundary map of irrigation districts in Tulare and lower Kings counties. Source: Adams 1929, Plate XXVI.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
30 ASM Affiliates

Figure 6. Tulare Irrigation District service area map, 2022.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 31

Figure 7. An 1885 irrigation map that also identifies the alignment of the Kaweah River, St. Johns Channel, associated creeks, and canals, including Cameron Creek. Source: Hammond 1885.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
32 ASM Affiliates

Figure 8. Excerpt from 1892 atlas map for T18S R25E that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek. Source: Thompson 1892a.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 33

Figure 9. Excerpt from 1892 atlas map for T19S R25E that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: Thompson 1892b.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
34 ASM Affiliates

Figure 10. An excerpt from a 1926 USGS topographical map that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USGS 1926.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 35

Figure 11. An excerpt from a 1950 USGS topographical map that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USGS 1950.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
36 ASM Affiliates

Figure 12. A 1956 aerial photograph that identifies the alignment of Cameron Creek and the TID Canal. Source: USDA 1956.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 37

2.5 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR WATER CONVEYANCE

SYSTEMS
The period of significance for historic water conveyance systems begins with the initial date of construction and considers any alignment changes that have been made over time. The period of significance must also consider the construction history of the linear systems, which may have been constructed and/or reconstructed or realigned by individuals, collectives, and/or irrigation districts and water companies over time.

Main Canals, Laterals, and Ditches
Main canals, laterals, or ditches can be individually eligible for the NRHP (Criteria A -D) and CRHR (Criteria 1-4). While the following criteria was developed for the Friant -Kern Canal, it is still applicable to smaller irrigation systems:
3 Criterion A/1: They have had a significant impact on the settlement, agricultural economy, or development patterns of the Project area; they have been defining elements in the evolution of the cultural landscape; they are directly associated with important events.

Criterion B/2: They are the result of the direct efforts of a prominent individual associated with the development of the local area or region and are the most prominent feature associated with that individual.

Criterion C/3: They represent the distinctive characteristics of canal design and/or methods of construction used during the period of construction, which may include solving engineering design problems due to topography, grade, length, and natural obstacles, and resulted in complex or innovative solutions; they are among the best or a rare surviving example of a distinctive type of water conveyance structure; they represent the evolving technology in the engineering, design, and construction of water conveyance structures; they were identified during the construction period as an individually significant feature; or they embody the work of a significant engineer or builder.

Criterion D/4: They have the ability to yield information important to understanding the history of the local area or region that cannot be found in historical documentation.

Integrity
The need for continual maintenance and repairs to canals requires special consideration of integrity. Irrigation systems are constantly evolving as features are upgraded, repaired, or replaced.

Alterations made to canals during the period of significance, and even subsequent thereto, may not nullify eligibility if a canal retains certain key qualities. Most important are integrity of location, association, and overall design configuration of the conveyance prism (i.e. depth and width) and water control feat ures. A canal which has retained its original form and associated appurtenant features has a high degree of integrity. It is not uncommon for canal lining to be replaced, or for previously unlined segments to be lined. Such changes may not preclude a canal ’s eligibility if

3 The section has been excerpted and adapted from Heather K. Norby and Stephen R. Wee, Historic Property Survey Report: Friant Kern Canal, JRP Historical Consulting, 2019:52-53.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
38 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project replacement features are in‐kind, or they do not significantly damage the canal’s historic association or its overall design. If —in addition to integrity of association, location, and overall design—the historical setting and feeling of a canal are maintai ned, then the likelihood is even higher that an altered canal could remain eligible. On the other hand, if an entire canal is piped, it would no longer convey any of its original design, workmanship, materials, or historical association and would not be contributing. Conversely, partial piping of a significant canal may not preclude eligibility if a majority of a canal is still open and intact.

Appurtenant Canal Features
4 Although appurtenant canal features are all operationally and thematically related to canals/laterals/ditches, each feature type serves a specific purpose. These features can be divided into five categories of structures: conveyance, regulating, protective , water measurement, and bridges. The first four of these types were built to function as part of the canal, while the bridges were built to function independently of the canal.

1. Conveyance Structures
Conveyance structures are features such as inverted siphons, drops, chutes, flumes, tunnels, and pipelines that are used to safely transport water from one location to another traversing various existing natural and manmade topographic features along the way. There are two types of pipelines, those that carry water below ground and those that transport water above ground.

2. Regulating Structures
Regulating structures are used to raise, lower, or control the release and volume of the water flow.

Regulating structures that are at the source of the water supply include headworks and turnouts.

Headworks control the release of water into the canal, and they are often downstream from a major diversion or storage facility. Regulating structures along the course of a canal include turnouts, checks, check‐drops, radial gates, reservoirs, and diversion structures. The smaller regulating structures like checks and turnouts are basic components of an irrigation system.

3. Protective Structures
Protective structures protect the canal system and adjacent property from damage which would result from uncontrolled storm runoff or drainage water, or an uncontrolled excess of flow within the canal. Several different types of structures perform this function, including overchutes, drainage inlets, siphon spillways, and wasteways.

4. Water Measurement Structures and Objects
Water measurement structures are used to gauge water flow and ensure its equitable distribution.

Many different types of water measurement structures are used in irrigation systems.

5. Bridges
Bridges crossing canals range from single-lane bridges, multi‐lane highway bridges, farm bridges, pedestrian bridges, and maintenance bridges.

4 Ibid., 53-54.

2. Environmental and Cultural Background
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 39 Significance
Secondary to the canals in distributing water are the thousands of appurtenant features. With the exception of bridges, these appurtenant features are important to the overall operation of the main canals yet are too small in size and repetitive in design to merit individual eligibility. Even though bridges cross canals and can be physically tied to the canal prism, bridges have no connection to the operation of the TID and therefore merit separate evaluation from other appurte nant features.

Bridges would rarely be individually eligible for the NRHP in association with this historic context.

Registration Requirements
Appurtenant canal features can be eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR for the following reasons:

Criterion A/1: They are directly associated with important events that occurred along canals;

Criterion B/2: not applicable;

Criterion C/3: They are among the best or a rare surviving example of a distinctive type of appurtenant canal feature; they represent the evolving technology in the design of appurtenant canal features; they represent a unique design solution developed in response to a difficult engineering challenge; they were identified during the construction period as an individually significant feature;

Criterion D/4: They have the ability to yield information important to understanding the history of the system.

Integrity
As with canals, many appurtenant features are upgraded, altered, or even replaced over time due to ongoing maintenance needs. The integrity of a structure’s historic materials, workmanship and design is essential for NRHP eligibility under any criterion. Location is of primary importance under Criterion A and C — a structure will rarely qualify under this criterion if it does not remain on its historic site along its associated canal.

Historical structures are typically evaluated for NRHP eligibility under Criteria A and/or B, for their associative values with major historical trends or individuals, and C for potential design or engineering importance. Conveyance systems are typically eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and/or C.

The CRHR Criteria and registration requirements for conveyance systems mirror the NRHP Criteria and registration requirements. Conveyance systems are typically eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criteria 1 and/or 3.

3. Archival Records and Sacred Lands File Searches
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 41

3. ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND SACRED LANDS FILE

SEARCHES

3.1 ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH
To determine whether the Project APE had been previously surveyed for cultural resources, and/or whether any such resources were known to exist within or near to it, staff of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) conducted an archival records search on June 10, 2024. The records search was completed to determine: (i) if pre -contact or historic-era cultural resources had previously been recorded within the Project APE ; (ii) if the Project APE had been systematically surveyed by archaeologi sts prior to the initiation of this field work; and/or (iii) whether the area surrounding the proposed Project was known to contain archaeological sites or built environment resources and to thereby be culturally sensitive. Records examined included archaeological site files and maps, the NRHP, Historic Property Data File, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the California Points of Historic Interest. The records search included the Project APE and a 0.5- mi. buffer.

According to the SSJVIC, three previous studies (TU -01383, TU -01690, TU-1966) have been conducted within the Project APE (Table 1). Approximately five percent of the Project APE has been previously studied. An additional 12 previous studies were identified within the 0.5- mi. buffer.

The SSJVIC data identified three previously recorded cultural resources (P -54-003229, P -54- 004832, and P-54-004877) within the APE ( Table 2 ). An additional 1 3 previously recorded cultural resources were identified within 0.5 mi. of the Project APE. The closest of these resources is less than 0.1 mi. from the Project APE. The results of the SSJVIC records search are available in Confidential Appendix A.

Table 1. Previous Reports

Report # Year Author Title
APE
Relationship
TU-00134 1998
Parr, Robert E. and
Sutton, Mark Q./
Center for
Archaeological
Research, California
State University,
Bakersfield
Archaeological Assessment of the Tulare
Irrigation District Main Canal Lining Project,
Tulare County, California
Outside
TU-00449 1994
Roop, William/
Archaeological
Resource Service
A Cultural Resources Evaluation of an
Approximately 40 Acre Parcel South of East
Tulare Avenue and East of McAuliff Street,
Visalia, California
Outside
TU-01144 2002
Cherry, Nikki/
ARCADIS Geraghty
& Miller
FCC011219G (Second Submittal) Section 106
Review for One Telecommunication Site Outside
TU-01167 2002 Villacorta, Estella/
GeoTek, Inc.

Section 106 Review, GeoTek Project
#0032SA2-017B Caldwell Avenue, Visalia,
California 93292
Outside

3. Archival Records and Sacred Lands File Searches
42 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project Report # Year Author Title
APE
Relationship
TU-01171 2003 Wren, Donald G./
Individual Consultant
A Cultural Resource Study: Park Creek Village
Apartments, APN #128 -210-001, Farmersville,
California
Outside
TU-01383 2010 Parr, Robert E./ Cal
Heritage
Cultural Resource Assessment for the Southern
California Edison Company Rector Substation
Waterline Improvement Project near the City of
Visalia, Tulare County, California (WO
800249915)
Within
TU-01659 2009 Haley, Kathryn/ ICF
Jones & Stokes
Historic Property Survey Report for Avenue 280
Road Widening Project, Tulare County,
California
Outside
TU-01659A 2009
Haley, Kathryn/ ICF
Jones & Stokes (for
Cal Trans)
Avenue 280 Road Widening Project Historic
Resources Evaluation Report Outside
TU-01659B 2009
O’Brien, Traci/ ICF
Jones & Stokes (for
Cal Trans)
Avenue 280 Road Widening Project
Archaeological Survey Report Outside
TU-01690 2014 Travers, Aniela/ EBI
Consulting
Cultural Resources Survey Farmersville
West/CVU3073 28685 Road 148, Visalia,
Tulare County, California
Within
TU-01764 2017
Foglia, Shannon E,
Cooley, Theodore G.,
and Miller, Chandra/
AECOM
Cultural Resources Survey Report for the
Proposed Southern California Edison North of
Magunden Transmission Line Rating
Remediation Project, Kern and Tulare Counties,
California
Outside
TU-01770 2017 Chandler, Evelyn/
Paleo Solutions, Inc.

Archaeological Survey Report for the Southern
California Edison Company Transmission Line
Rating Remediation (TLRR) Project for the
Rector Material Yard, Tulare County, California
Outside
TU-01936 2022
Sauls, Consuelo Y./
Taylored
Archaeology
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Higgin's Ranch Annexation and Tentative
Subdivision Map Project, City of Visalia, Tulare
County, California
Outside
TU-1966 2022
Carey, Peter A.,
Whitley, David S.,
and Azpitarte,
Robert/ASM
Affiliates, Inc.

Phase I Survey, Pearl Woods Subdivision
Project, Tulare County, California Within
TU-01977 2021
Andrews, Sheri and
Whitley, David S./
ASM Affiliates, Inc.

Class III Inventory/Phase I Survey, Tract 92
Water System Consolidation and Upgrade
Project, Tulare County, California.

Outside

Table 2. Previously Recorded Resources

Primary # Type Description Eligibility Status APE Relationship P-54-000016 Prehistoric-era site GWH 132. J-90 Old
Broder Unknown Outside
P-54-000107 Prehistoric-era site Lithic scatter Unknown Outside P-54-004626 Historic-era structure
Southern Pacific
Railroad; San Joaquin
Valley Railroad
Determined not eligible Outside
P-54-003229 Historic-era structure Wylie Hinds Ranch Unevaluated Within P-54-004832
Historic-era
structure/ District
element
Big Creek East & West
Transmission Line Determined eligible Within

3. Archival Records and Sacred Lands File Searches
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 43 Primary # Type Description Eligibility Status APE Relationship P-54-004877 Historic-era structure Cameron Creek Channel and Levees Unevaluated Within
P-54-004878 Historic-era structure PL-31 Unevaluated Outside P-54-004881 Historic-era structure PL-38 Unevaluated Outside P-54-004883 Historic-era structure PL-41 Unevaluated Outside P-54-005066 Historic-era structure 3415 E. Caldwell Ave Recommended not eligible Outside P-54-005067 Historic-era structure 3800 E. Caldwell Ave Recommended not eligible Outside P-54-005221
Historic-era
structure/ District
element
Rector Substation Determined Eligible Outside
P-54-005289 Historic-era structure Bliss Ditch/ CWA20-
231-1 Recommended not eligible Outside
P-54-005296 Historic-era structure Tulare Irrigation District Canal Unevaluated Adjacent
P-54-005667 Historic-era structure Extension Ditch Unevaluated Outside CHL 471 Historic-era
road/route Butterfield Stage Route California Historic
Landmark Outside

3.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCE WITHIN THE APES
Cameron Creek (P-54-004877)
A short segment of Cameron Creek and its associated levee was recorded but not evaluated in 2007 (Armstrong and MacDonald 2007).

SCE Big Creek Hydroelectric System, East & West 220kV Transmission Line (P-54-004832)
According to Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC,

The Big Creek East & West 220kV Transmission Line is a contributing element to the NRHP / CRHR listed Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District.

The Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District has been determined eligible for NRHP listing by the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) by consensus. The BCHSHD includes the Big Creek Hydroelectic [sic] System East & West Transmission Line and its modern -day segments identified as Big Creek #1-Rector, Rector-Vestal #1, Magunden-Vestal #1, Magunden-Pastoria #1, Pardee- Pastoria East, Pardee- Sylmar #1, Eagle Rock -Sylmar East, Big Creek #1- Powerhouse #2, Powerhouse #2- Powerhouse #3, Big Creek #3- Rector, Rector - Vestal #2, Magunden- Vestal #2, Magunden- Pastoria #2, Pardee -Pastoria West, Pardee-Sylmar #2, and Eagle Rock-Sylmar West 220kV Transmission Lines.

For its direct association with the Big Creek Hydroelectric System, as the first high- voltage transmission line constructed from Big Creek to coney electricity [ sic] to and support industrialization of the Los Angeles region, and for its embodiment of innovative electrical engineering technicques [sic] at an electric power conveyance system between 1912-1929, the 241-mile Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic East & West 220kV Transmission Line is eligible for inclusion on the National

3. Archival Records and Sacred Lands File Searches
44 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project Register of Historic Places Criterion A, B, and C and the California Register of Historic Places under Criteria 1, 2, and 3 as a contributing element to the BCHSHD within the established 1911- 1929 period of significance (Urbana Preservation & Planning 2020).

Wylie Hinds Ranch (P-54-003229)

The ranch was recorded in 1980 with the intention of recordation of a site that no longer exists and has no known built environment associated features (Ramsey 1980). This resource is not considered further in this report.

3.3 SACRED LANDS FILE
As part of the CEQA process, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted to request a list of Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project APE, as well as a Sacred Lands File (SLF). On June 10, 2024, the NAHC responded with negative SLF results and 21 Tribal contacts from 11 Tribes. Outreach letters were mailed and emailed to all listed Tribes on July 29, 2024. No responses were received. NAHC request, NAHC results, Tribal outreach letters, and Tribal responses can be found in Confidential Appendix B.

4. Methods and Results
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 45

4. METHODS A ND RESULTS

4.1 FIELD METHODS
An intensive Class III inventor y/Phase I survey of the Project APE was conducted by ASM Assistant Archaeologist Daniel Ware, B.A. , on July 30, 2024. The Class III inventory/ Phase I survey included a review of the Project APE for the presence of built environment features. The field methods employed also included intensive pedestrian examination of the ground surface for evidence of archaeological sites in the form of artifacts, surface features (such as bedrock mortars, historical mining equipment), and archaeological indicators (e.g., organically enriched midden soil, burnt animal bone); the identification and location of any discovered sites, should they be present; tabulation and recording of surface diagnostic artifacts; site sketch mapping; preliminary evaluation of site integrity; and site recording, following the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Instructions for Recording Historic Resources using California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) series 523 forms . Parallel survey transects spaced at maximum intervals of 15 meters (m) apart were employed for pedestrian survey of the 16.1 ac. Project APE.

4.2 SURVEY RESULTS

4.2.1 Built Environment Results
Background research, field survey, and contemporary aerial photographic surveys revealed several built environment resources associated with the three previously identified built environment resources, consisting of the historic-era Cameron Creek Channel and Levees (P-54-004877), Wylie Hinds Ranch (P-54-003229), and Big Creek Hydroelectric System (P-54-004832). Within the three APEs (Measurement Check, Rector Check, and Lovers Check), there are segments of Cameron Creek referenced that function as part of TID and other irrigation districts.

Rector Check Segment (P-54-004877)

A fallen utility post (14 in. in diameter) was noted in the Rector Check APE . It was lying across the canal, likely used as a footbridge by locals.

Cameron Creek (P-54-004877)
This section of Cameron Creek was present within the APE. Within the Lovers Check APE, riprap was present throughout (Figure 13) . The creek prism is trapezoidal in shape and of earthen material. This section is primarily dry with incremental standing water. The entire section of the creek is 40 ft. across. The base is 15 ft. across. The walls of the creek bed are both 6 ft. high and approximately 5 ft. wide. Along the north bank, the dirt road functions as a levee without a berm and is 15 ft. across. Along the south bank, the dirt road functions as a levee without a berm and is also 15 ft. across. Both roads function as levees without berms and are the same height as the surrounding land. Orchards are present to the south. Empty fields exist to the north. Modern trash was found along the length of the entire segment. Wall erosion was noted along the east side of the south bank.

4. Methods and Results
46 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project

Figure 13. Lovers Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing west.

Within the Rector Check APE, the creek is completely dry (Figure 14). Dirt roads that function as levees are present on both sides and are the same height as the surrounding land. The north levee road is 17 ft. wide. The south levee road is 11 ft. wide. The walls of the creek bed are approximately 8 ft. wide. The north wall is approximately 8 ft. high. The south bank wall is approximately 13 ft. high. These heights stay consistent throughout the length of the segment. The base of the creek bed is 20 ft. across. The creek is approximately 36 ft. wide. Riprap and modern refuse are present throughout the entire segment. Fallow fields and orchards are interspersed on both sides of the segment. A private property with an associated farm bridge across the canal is present along the southeast bank.

4. Methods and Results
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 47

Figure 14. Rector Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing southwest.

Within the Measurement Check APE , the segment of Cameron Creek is completely dry (Figure 15). Roads that function as levees are present on both sides of the creek segment. The southern levee road is 13 ft. wide. The northern levee road is 13 ft. wide. The levee roads are 3 ft. higher than surrounding orchard ground. The base of the creek bed is 20 ft. wide. The creek bed walls are 15 ft. high and 10 ft. wide. The creek segment is 40 ft. wide. A basin is adjacent to Road 156 and immediately south of the creek, but outside the APE. A second basin just east of the canal is also outside the APE. Orchards surround the Measurement Check APE, with the exception of the two basins to the south and east. Riprap and modern trash are present throughout this segment of the creek.

4. Methods and Results
48 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project

Figure 15. Measurement Check APE segment of Cameron Creek, facing north, northeast.

Culvert

Within the Measurement Check APE, a single culvert was present along Sixth Avenue East. The culvert measures 11 ft. from opening to base of the canal. It is made of cast concrete, 2 ft. thick. A steel guardrail protects the culvert. Three concrete supports are present underneath the culvert and measure 1 ft. wide each

Farm Bridge

Within the Rector APE is a one-lane, farm bridge that facilitates access to both sides of Cameron Creek for agricultural purposes. The bridge measures 12.5 ft. wide, 1.5 ft. deep, approximately 5 ft. tall. The topside deck is formed concrete with the girder composed of wood beams that measure 5 in. thick. The foundations on either side are cast concrete.

4. Methods and Results
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 49 County Bridge at Road 148

The bridge in the Rector Check APE is on Road 148, approximately 1,750 ft. south of Avenue 288 (Figure 16). The bridge is made of cast concrete which measures 20 ft. in length and 1 ft. wide.

Metal guardrailing is present along the length of the top of the bridge. According to the National Bridge Inventory the bridge was constructed in 1951 and was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP (U.S. Federal Highway Administration 2022). Underneath the road, a box culvert was observed. The culvert is approximately 1 ,070 ft. east of Avenue 288. The culvert opening is 6 ft. from the base of the creek and is cast concrete. It is 8 in. wide by 32 in. tall by approximately 70 ft. long. Metal road barriers are present on either side, each approximately 25 ft. long. A metal stamp on the western concrete abutment reads: “Tulare County BM 149- 288”. The identified “1981” was visible but could not be photographed due to heavy traffic.

Figure 16. County Bridge at Road 148, facing northeast.

4. Methods and Results
50 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project

Transmission Corridor (P-54-004832)

The Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District intersects the APE; however, the transmission lines run above the APE (Figure 17), and no portions of the built resources are within the APE. P-54-004832 has already been determined eligible for NRHP listing by the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) by consensus. Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC 2020).

Figure 17. Transmission Corridor (P-54-004832), facing south, southeast.

Turnout

A turnout from the TID into the Cameron Creek was present on the eastern terminus of the Measurement Check APE (Figure 18). Based on historical aerials, the TID added an individual farm turnout on Cameron Creek in 2009, and it is considered a modern resource (Figure 18). Since the Cameron Creek turnout is under 50 years in age, it does not meet the age threshold for consideration in the NRHP.

4. Methods and Results
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 51

Figure 18. TID Turnout, facing north, northwest.

4.2.2 Archaeological Results
The proposed Project APE consists of water conveyance features surrounded by agricultural fields, paved roads, and unpaved roads ( see Figures 13 through Figure 15 ). Much of the Project APE appears to have been disturbed to create the extant water conveyance features and roads (see Figure 15 through Figure 17). Due to the previous disturbances, ground surface visibility within the APE was excellent (greater than 95 percent) except for the portions of the water conveyance features that were filled with water for the Class III inventory/Phase I survey. Soils consisted of tan to brown sandy loam throughout the Project APE. Non-native vegetation inhibited visibility. Modern refuse including plastic buckets, milled lumber , plastic sheeting, concrete fragments, and a mattress were observed.

No archaeological resources of any kind were identified within the Project APE.

5. Summary, Impacts Assessment, and Recommendations
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 53

5. SUMMARY, EVALUATION, ASSESSMENT OF

EFFECTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An intensive Class III inventory/Phase I survey was conducted for the Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project, Tulare County, California. A records search was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

This search indicated that much of the Project APE had not been previously surveyed, and that three built environment resources were recorded within the Project APE. An NAHC SLF search was conducted for the Project APE and the NAHC responded with negative SLF results.

A Class III inventory/Phase I survey fieldwork of the Project APE was conducted in July 2024 with parallel transects at 15 m. intervals. Three resources, consisting of the Wylie Hinds Ranch (P-54-003229), Big Creek Hydroelectric System (P-54-004832), and a section of Cameron Creek (P-54-004877) were recorded as intersecting with the APE . An evaluation of these resources is provided below.

ASM identified a turnout within the Measurement Check APE. ASM considered whether it was potentially a contributing resource to TID’s Cameron Creek. Based on historical aerials, the TID added an individual farm turnout on Cameron Creek between 2005 and 2009, and is a modern resource. Since the Cameron Creek turnout is under 50 years in age, it does not meet the age threshold for consideration in the NRHP. ASM considered if the Cameron Creek turnout could be eligible under Criteria Consideration G. The National Register excludes properties that have achieved significance within the last 50 years, but allows some exceptions under Criteria Consideration G for properties of “exceptional importance” (NPS 1997: 41).To exhibit exceptional importance, a property must first be eligible under one of the four standard criteria and must be either associated with an event of extraordinary importance or be considered part of an entire category of resources so fragile that survivors of any age are unusual. Since the Cameron Creek turnout in the APE is neither associated with an event of extraordinary importance nor could be considered fragile, this resource does not qualify for Criteria Consideration G and is not considered a contributing historic property under Section 106 or a contributing historical resource under CEQA.

No additional built environment resources and no archaeological resources were identified within the APE.

5.1 EVALUATION
Cameron Creek Segments within APEs (P-54-004877)

The proposed Project includes three linear segments of Cameron Creek referenced as Measurement Check APE, Rector APE, and Lovers APE, and Cameron Creek functions as part of TID and other irrigation districts. The entire TID system has not been recorded and evaluated as a potential historic district. While the period of significance for a potential TID historic district may be 1889 (when the TID system was organized and absorbed existing waterways) through 1964 (the end of the mid-twentieth century era of redevelopment within the TID), it is outside the purview

5. Summary, Impacts Assessment, and Recommendations
54 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project of this Project to record and evaluate the entire TID system. As part of this project, ASM has evaluated segments of Cameron Creek as a potential contributor to a TID historic district.

TID’s first program of significant improvements was 1892–1925. The second TID improvement program was completed during 1951–1964. As previously mentioned, there was a drought during 1929–1931 and 1933–1934 when little to no water flowed in Cameron Creek, but a flood in 1932 overtook Cameron Creek and caused massive damage. Therefore, the potential period of significance for Cameron Creek as a feature of the TID system is 1892 –1925 (when Cameron Creek was utilized as a conveyance channel and was improved during the first program of TID system improvements) , and 1935 (when the drought ended) to 1964 (the end of second improvement program).

ASM considered the potential eligibility of the segments of Cameron Creek within the Project APEs as a potential contributor to a historic district eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criteria A/1, B/2, C/3, and D/4. Given that Cameron Creek is a natural creek that has been partially channelized and is not a built resource, ASM did not consider the possibility that Cameron Creek is potentially individually eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criteria A/1, B/2, C/3, and D/4. T he segments of C ameron Creek recorded within the APE are potentially eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1 as part of the TID system. Cameron Creek is a primary waterway of the TID system as it carries water for the TID system and other irrigation districts. The TID system laid the foundation that facilitated agricultural growth and provided a consistent water supply that increased and sustained settlement and development in the broader areas of Tulare and Visalia, California. The TID system transformed the type of agricultural crops that could be farmed within the boundaries of the TID particularly high-revenue producing citrus that required more water deliveries than other crops . Therefore, the recorded segments of Cameron Creek meet NRHP/CRHR under Criteria A/1 and an assessment of integrity is warranted.

ASM assessed the integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association) of the three segments of Cameron Creek within the Project APEs with periods of significance of 1892–1925 and 1935–1964. ASM was not able to locate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers records that confirmed Cameron Creek channelization efforts or levee/road construction within the APEs, but other sources of historical information provided dates of likely improvements.

Based on available historical documents, ASM identified only one alignment alteration of Cameron Creek segments within the APEs, which is within the Rector APE and had been altered between 1926 and 1950. Channelization and levee/road construction did not change the alignment of the other two segments, although some other segments of Cameron Creek were realigned outside the APE. It is expected that a creek course, which is a natural body of water, would naturally change over time due to upstream water users and flooding events. Although the segment of Cameron Creek within the Rector APE was modified, it was within the second period of significance. Some segments outside the APEs had some realignments , which is expected of a natural waterway given the impacts of flood events and efforts to reduce erosion, but the recorded segments of Cameron Creek within the APE s retain high integrity of location and setting. The width of Cameron Creek varies within the three segments from 9 ft. (Measurement APE) to 18 ft. (Rector APE) to 20 ft. (Lovers APE). As a natural waterway, it is not a designed course and the width changed over time with upstream water users and flood events prompting modifications through channelization. The creek remains unlined and roughly retains the same form. Therefore,

5. Summary, Impacts Assessment, and Recommendations
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 55 it retains high integrity of design and materials. The recorded segments of Cameron Creek properly convey its history as an integral waterway for the TID system. As such, the recorded segments of Cameron Creek retain high integrity of feeling . Finally, Cameron Creek is a significant resource in agricultural development and the history of the surrounding are a and continues to play a significant role in the present day. As such, the recorded segments of Cameron Creek retain high integrity of association to the themes of irrigated agriculture. Given that the entire TID system and the entire Cameron Creek has not been evaluated, ASM’s assessment is based on available information for the segments within the APEs. Based on that information, ASM assumes that the segments of Cameron Creek within the APEs are eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR under Criteria A/1 as a contributor to the TID system for the periods of significance of 1935–1964, which is when they may have been significantly improved last.

ASM considered whether the recorded segments of Cameron Creek are eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria C/3. It is expected that a creek course, which is a natural body of water, would naturally change over time due to upstream water users and flooding events. However, other than channelization and levee /road construction, there are no built resources associated with the TID within the APEs that represent a distinctive characteristic of type, period, or method of construction.

ASM then considered whether the recorded segments of Cameron Creek within the APEs are eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criter ia D/4. Criterion D is not applicable as the segments of Cameron Creek do not have the potential to provide information about history or prehistory that is not available through historic research. As such, ASM recommends the recorded sections of Cameron Creek as not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria D/4.

In summary, the recorded segments of Cameron Creek are recommended assumed eligible under NRHP and CRHR under Criteria A/1 as a contributor to TID system historic district with periods of significance of periods of significance of 1935–1964.

Culverts

Given that the culverts within the three APEs are associated with road construction and not Cameron Creek modifications , and because they will not be directly impacted by the proposed Project, ASM did not evaluate the culverts within the APE.

Farm Bridge

Within the Rector APE is a one-lane, farm bridge that facilitates access to both sides of Cameron Creek for agricultural purposes. The topside deck is formed concrete with the girder composed of wood beams. The foundations on either side are formed concrete. The bridge is not potentially eligible for listing to the NRHP as a contributor to a historic district. The precedent has already been set with the Friant -Kern Canal (FKC) evaluation and SHPO concurrence that categorically identified farm bridges a s non- contributing resources for the larger and more expansive FKC (Norby and Wee 2019; Polanco 2019) (Appendix D). Therefore, a farm bridge associated with a

5. Summary, Impacts Assessment, and Recommendations
56 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project creek within the TID system would similarly not embody characteristics to support the context and eligibility under Criteria A/1 or C/3.

County Bridge at Road 148

In 2022, a National Bridge Inventory conducted by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration identified the Road 148 bridge constructed in 1951 as not eligible for listing in the NRHP (U.S.

Federal Highway Administration 2022).

Transmission Corridor (P-54-004832)

The Big Creek Hydroelectric System Historic District has already been determined eligible for NRHP listing by the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) by consensus (Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC 2020).

5.2 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
The proposed Project will result in construction of three measurement checks. The proposed Project will only directly effect Cameron Creek and its associated levee/road . While the measurement check gates will be new structures on Cameron Creek, the project will not require widening Cameron Creek. The measurement check structure foot prints will permanently impact both banks of Cameron Creek. As such, the Project will result in some physical effects to Cameron Creek (P-54-004877). The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for Rehabilitation (Standards for Rehabilitation ) allow for reasonable change to a historic property, including related new construction and changes to setting, provided that change does not destroy character-defining features unnecessarily or impair a historic property’s ability to convey its significance. Thus, following is an analysis of the proposed Project for compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation.

Per the Standards for Rehabilitation, Cameron Creek would continue to fulfill its function and support TID in irrigating agricultural lands through water management as it has historically. The addition of measurement check gates will be an important addition to the TID system for waterflow regulation. The historic character of Cameron Creek would be preserved because the majority of extant materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the linear resource would be retained. Only a small am ount of the historic materials will be impacted (i.e. soil removed for construction will be replaced post construction) and will result in an almost immeasurable percent change to the entire Cameron Creek . The spatial relationship between Cameron Creek and its setting would remain unchanged. The new measurement checks would be differentiated from the historic features of Cameron Creek , but still visually compatible in terms of materials, features, size, scale, and proportion. Additionally, views of the setting from the APE, including Cameron Creek, will remain the same. After completion of the project, Cameron Creek will remain in the same status of assumed eligibility for listing in the NRHP and CRHR as a contributing feature of the TID system. Therefore, ASM recommends that the Project will not result in an adverse effect to historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA and a less -than-significant impact to a historical resource pursuant to CEQA.

5. Summary, Impacts Assessment, and Recommendations
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 57

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above analyses and findings, ASM recommends a finding of no adverse effect under NHPA and a less-than-significant impact under CEQA. The proposed Project will add three measurement check gates . However, the proposed Project follows the Standards for Rehabilitation; after the Project is completed, the overall historic character of Cameron Creek and the TID system will remain, and it will remain assumed eligible for the NRHP and CRHR.

It is further recommended that, in the unlikely event that previously unrecorded cultural resources are identified during Project construction, work be halted within a 100 ft. radius of the find and a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate the newly discovered resource.

References
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 59

REFERENCES
Adams, Frank
1929 Irrigation Districts in California. Sacramento: California State Printing Office.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
n.d. National Register Evaluation Criteria. Electronic document, http://www.achp.gov/ nrcriteria.html. Accessed June 18, 2018.

Armstrong, Matthew and Laura MacDonald
2007 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Southern California Edison Company Cross Valley Transmission Project, Tulare County, California. Submitted to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA.

Austin, John T.
2012 Floods and Droughts in the Tulare Lake Basin. Available at http://www.tularebasinwatershedpartnership.org/uploads/2/1/4/7/21473344/floods_an d_droughts_in_tulare_lake__basin_secondedition_2.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2024.

Boyd, W.H.
1997 Lower Kern River Country 1850- 1950: Wilderness to Empire . Kings River Press, Lemoore.

Cook, S. F.
1978 Historical Demography. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, R. F. Heizer, editor, pp. 91-98. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institute.

Culleton, Brendan J.
2006 Implications of a Freshwater Radiocarbon Reservoir Correction for the Timing of the Late Holocene Settlement of the Elk Hills, Kern County, California. Journal of Science 33:1331-1339.

Driver, H.E.
1937 Cultural Element Distributions: VI, Southern Sierra Nevada. University of California Anthropological Records 1(2):53-154. Berkeley

Elsasser, A.
1962 Indians of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks . Three Rivers: Sequoia Natural History Association.

Fenenga, F.
1952 The Archaeology of the Slick Rock Village, Tulare County, California. American Antiquity 17:339-347.

References
60 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project Fenenga, G.
1993 Test Excavations at the Witt Site (CA -KIN-32). In W.J. Wallace and F.A. Riddell, editors, pp. 25-38, Finding the Evidence: The Quest for Tulare Lake’s Archaeological Past. Contributions to Tulare Lake Archaeology II. Redondo Beach, Tulare Lake Archaeological Research Group.

Fredrickson, D.A., and J. Grossman
1977 A San Dieguito component at Buena Vista Lake, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:173-190.

Gayton, A.H.
1930 Yokuts- Mono Chiefs and Shamans. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24. Berkeley, 361-420.
1948 Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography. University of California Anthropological Records 10:1–290. Berkeley.

Gifford, E.W., and W.E. Schenck
1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23(1):1-122.

Glennan, W.S.
1987a Concave- Based Lanceolate Fluted Projectile Points from California. Prehistory of the Antelope Valley, California: An Overview , R.W. Robinson, ed., Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No.1: 21-24.
1987b Evidence for Paleoeastern Culture Type in the Southwestern Great Basin. P rehistory of the Antelope Valley, California: An Overview, R.W. Robinson, ed., Antelope Valley Archaeological Society, Occasional Papers No.1:11-20.

Grunsky, C.E.
1898 Irrigation Near Fresno. Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers of the United States Geological Survey, No. 18. Washington, Government Printing Office.

Harrington, John Peabody
n.d. Yokuts ethnographic notes. National Anthropological Archives.

Hewes, G.
1941 Archaeological reconnaissance of the central San Joaquin Valley. American Antiquity 7:123-133.

References
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 61

Hemphill, Oscar
1945 Agricultural Crop Report . Tulare County Department of Agriculture. Available at https://agcomm.co.tulare.ca.us/pest-exclusion-standardization/crop-reports1/crop- reports-1940-1959/1945-crop-report/. Accessed September 4, 2024.

Horne, S.P.
1981 The Inland Chumash: Ethnography, Ethnohistory and Archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation, UCSB. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Jones. T.L., G.M. Brown, L.M. Raab, J.L. McVickar, W.G. Spaulding. D.J. Kennett, A. York, and P.L. Walker
1999 Demographic Crisis in Western North America during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40:137-170.

JRP Historical Consulting Services

2009 North Kern Water Storage District, Lateral Canal 8-1: Inventory and Evaluations, Kern County, California. Prepared for North Kern Water Storage District. 2019 Historic Property Survey Report: Friant Kern Canal.

King, C., C. Smith, and T. King
n.d. Archaeological Report Related to the Interpretation of Archaeological Resources Present at the Vasquez Rocks County Park. Report on file, SCCIC.

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

Washington, D.C.

Levine, Yasha
2011 California Class War History: Meet the Oligarch Family That’s Been Scamming Taxpayers for 150 Years, and Counting! Available online at http://exiledonline.com/california-class-war-history-meet-the-oligarch-family-thats- been-scamming-taxpayers-for-150-years-and-counting/; accessed November 8, 2023.

Los Angeles Almanac
2024 “Once America’s Most Productive Agricultural County.” Available at https://www.laalmanac.com/agriculture/ag721.php. Accessed September 4, 2024.

Mankins, Elvin O.
1959 County of Tulare California: 1959 Annual Report. Available at https://agcomm.co.tulare.ca.us/pest-exclusion-standardization/crop-reports1/crop- reports-1940-1959/1959-crop-report/. Accessed September 4, 2024.

Menafee, Eugene L. and Fred A. Dodge
1913 History of Tulare and Kings Counties, California. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.

References
62 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project

Meyer, J., D. Craig Young, and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal
2010 Volume I: A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Caltrans Districts 6 and 9. Submitted to California Department of Transportation.

Moratto, M.
1984 California Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.

Morgan, W.A.
1914 History of Kern County, California with Biographical Sketches. Los Angeles: Historic Record Company.

Pacific Legacy, Inc.
2006 Southern San Joaquin Valley Oil Fields Comprehensive Study . Manuscript on file, BLM Bakersfield office.

Powers, Stephen
1971 The Yokuts Dance for the Dead. In The California Indians: A Source Book (second edition), edited by R.F. Heizer and M.A. Whipple, pp. 513-519. Berkeley, University of California Press (original 1877).
1976 Tribes of California. Berkeley, University of California Press (original 1877).

Preston, William L.
1981 Vanishing Landscapes: Land and Life in the Tulare Lake Basin. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Ramsey, Eleanor
1980 Historic Resources Inventory. Record on file at the Southern San Joaquin Information Center

Regional Water Management Group, Kaweah River Basin
2017 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan: A Collaborative Effort of Stakeholders within the Kaweah River Basin.

Robinson, W.W.
1948 Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims, Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, Homesteads. Oakland: University of California Press.

Rosenthal, J. S., White, G. G., & Sutton, M. Q.
2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbird’s Seat. California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity(50):147-164.

Schiffman, R.A., and A.P. Garfinkel
1981 Prehistory of Kern County: An Overview. Bakersfield College Publications in Archaeology, Number 1.

References
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 63 Shultz, Tom
2000 The Dairy Industry in Tulare County. University of California Cooperative Extension.

Siefkin, Nelson
1999 Archaeology of the Redfeldt Mound (CA -KIN-66), Tulare Basin, California. M.A.

Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.

Sutton, M.Q.
1988a An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Western Mojave Desert, California. Archives of California Prehistory, No. 14. Salinas: Coyote Press. 1988b On the Late Prehistory of the Western Mojave Desert. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 24(1):22-29.
2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into the Southern California.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 40(2, 3): 31-73.

Thompson, H.
1892 California State Engineering Department. Fresno Sheet. Electronic document online at https://ia802207.us.archive.org/6/items/dr_california-state-engineering-department- detail-irrigation-map-fresno-shee-5832002/5832002.jpg. Accessed December 2023.

TID (Tulare Irrigation District)
n.d. Tulare Irrigation District History. Available online at http://tulareid.org/district-profile; accessed November 8, 2021.

Tulare Advance-Register
1957 “Most Irrigation Ditches are Full.” 30 December. Page 1.

Tulare County Board of Trade
1917 Bulletin. Available at agcomm.co.tulare.ca.us/pest -exclusion-standardization/crop- reports1/crop-reports-1917-1939/1917-crop-report/. Accessed September 4, 2024. 1939 Bulletin. Available at https://agcomm.co.tulare.ca.us/pest-exclusion- standardization/crop-reports1/crop-reports-1917-1939/1939-crop-report/. Accessed September 4, 2024.

Tulare Daily Times
1931 “Ditch-Tender Found Dead in TID Canal.” 15 June. Page 1.

Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
2020 Historic-Era Built Environment Survey Report, Transmission Line Rating Remediation Program | Kern River to Los Angeles Project, Kern and Los Angeles Counties, CA .

January.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1956 Aerial. Available at Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC.

References
64 Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project

U.S. Federal Highway Administration
2022 “National Bridge Inspection.” Available at https://data.freep.com/bridge/ California/tulare/rd-148-over-cameron-creek/06-46C0391/. Accessed August 30, 2024.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1926 “California (Tulare County) Exeter Quadrangle.” Topography by E. S. Rickard.

Surveyed 1924-1925.
1950 “Exeter Quadrangle, California -Tulare County.” Topography by Kelsh plotter 1950, Culture and Drainage by Multiplex Methods from Aeiral Photographs 1946.

Visalia Times
1900 “About the City.” Volume 16, Number 129. 22 January.

Visalia Times-Delta
1909a “Irrigation From Rivers and Wells Compared.” 18 December. Page 20. 1909b “Tulare County, California.” 18 December. Page 20. 1925 “Water May Be Scare Again in Some Canals: Tulare Irrigation District Doubting Summer.” 14 March. Page 4.

W&S Consultants
1994 Phase II Test Excavations and Determinations of Significance at CA -LAN-2133, - 2233, -2234, -2235, -2236, -2240, - 2241 and -2242, Los Angeles County, California.

Manuscript on file, CSUF AIC.
1999 Class III Inventory/Limited Archaeological Testing Program for the Manuscript on file, CSUB AIC.
2004 Class II Inventory of the Carrizo Plain National Monument, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report on file, BLM Bakersfield office.
2006 Phase II Test Excavations and Determinations of Significance for the Tejon Mountain Village Project, Kern County, California. Report on file, Tejon Ranch Company.

Wedel, W.
1941 Archaeological Investigations at Buena Vista Lake, Kern County, California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 130.

Whitley, D.S.
1992 Shamanism and Rock Art in Far Western North America. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1):89-113.
2000 The Art of the Shaman: Rock Art of California. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Whitley, D.S., and M.P. Beaudry
1991 Chiefs on the Coast: The Development of Complex Society in the Tiquisate Region in Ethnographic Perspective. In The Development of Complex Civilizations in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by W. Fowler, pp. 101-120. Orlando: CRC Press.

References
Cameron Creek Check Structure Linear Recharge Project 65

Whitley, D.S., G. Gumerman IV, J. Simon, and E. Rose
1988 The Late Prehistoric Period in the Coso Range and Environs. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 24(1):2-10.

Whitley, D.S., J. Simon, and J.H.N. Loubser
2007 The Carrizo Collapse: Art and Politics in the Past. In A Festschrift Honoring the Contributions of California Archaeologist Jay von Werlhof, edited by R.L. Kaldenberg, pp. 199-208. Ridgecrest: Maturango Museum Publication 20.

Zimmerman, K.L., C.L. Pruett, and M.Q. Sutton
1989 A Clovis-Like Projectile Point from the Southern Sierra Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 11:89-91.

Visalia City CouncilNovember 18, 2024

Visalia City Council
November 18, 2024