18.08.2013 Views

Draft EIS_072312.pdf - Middle Fork American River Project ...

Draft EIS_072312.pdf - Middle Fork American River Project ...

Draft EIS_072312.pdf - Middle Fork American River Project ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

20120723-4002 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2012<br />

defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or<br />

indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such<br />

properties exist. In this case, the APE for the <strong>Middle</strong> <strong>Fork</strong> <strong>Project</strong> includes lands within<br />

the project boundary, as delineated in the current Commission license, plus lands outside<br />

the project boundary where project operations may affect the character or use of historic<br />

properties or TCPs.<br />

The APE for the proposed project is defined as the land within 200 feet of the<br />

existing project boundary and encompassing the following:<br />

• project facilities and features;<br />

• project recreation facilities or features; and<br />

• proposed project facilities or features, or disturbance areas (e.g., construction<br />

and staging areas), associated with the Hell Hole Seasonal Storage Increase<br />

Improvement area.<br />

The proposed project area above project tunnels is excluded from the APE because<br />

there are no surface activities associated with the project anticipated in this area.<br />

PCWA consulted with the Tahoe National Forest, the Eldorado National Forest,<br />

Native <strong>American</strong> Tribes, and members of the Cultural Resources Technical Working<br />

Group to define the APE. The California SHPO concurred with this definition (letter<br />

from M.F. Donaldson, State Historic Preservation Officer, California Department of<br />

Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA, to A. Fecko, Resource Planning Administrator,<br />

PCWA, Auburn, CA, February 23, 2010).<br />

Cultural History Overview<br />

The cultural chronology of this part of the Sierra Nevada was initially proposed by<br />

Heizer and Elsasser in the early 1950s (Heizer and Elsasser, 1953, as cited by PCWA,<br />

2010d). These researchers defined two archaeological complexes for the region<br />

stretching back nearly 4,000 years. The Martis Complex (2,500 to 1,500 years before<br />

present [BP]) was characterized by a preference for basalt as a raw material for bifaces<br />

and rough projectile points, base finger-held drills or punches, a rare use of chert and<br />

obsidian for stone tools, the use of manos and metates, and an emphasis on the hunting of<br />

large game. The Kings Beach Complex, which emerged about 1,300 years ago, and was<br />

characterized by a preference for obsidian as a tool stone and the rare use of basalt, the<br />

production of small projectile points, the absence of drills, the use of bedrock mortars for<br />

food processing, and a shift to a reliance on seed processing and fishing.<br />

Subsequent research attempted to build upon and refine the Martis and Kings<br />

Beach Complex chronology. Elston (1971, as cited by PCWA, 2010d) identified a “pre-<br />

Martis” culture called the Spooner Complex (7,000 to 2,000 BP) that represented<br />

habitation of higher elevations within the Sierra Nevada by groups relocating from the<br />

western Great Basin during the Altithermal. Elston also recommended a revision of the<br />

larger Martis Complex into two phases. Phase 1 (3,000 to 2,000 BP) was characterized<br />

248

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!