ML16050A297

Nrhp Dist. Nom. Update: Rancho Canada De Los Osos Y Pecho Y Islay

ML16050A297
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	04/24/2013
From:	Taggart M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Correia J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of CA, Dept of Parks & Recreation
Shared Package
ML16048A230	List: DCL-15-142, Pacific Gas & Electric 230kV Electrical Switchyard Voltage Support Project DCL-2011-512, 2010 Annual Report on Discharge Monitoring DCL-2014-500, 2013 Annual Report on Discharge Monitoring ML16048A204 ML16048A205 ML16048A206 ML16048A207 ML16048A208 ML16048A210 ML16048A211 ML16048A212 ML16048A213 ML16048A214 ML16048A215 ML16048A218 ML16048A219 ML16048A284 ML16048A286 ML16050A178 ML16050A180 ML16050A291 ML16050A292 ML16050A294 ML16050A296 ML16050A297
References
DCL-15-142, CAC MF4019, CAC MF4020
Download: ML16050A297 (12)

Text

Tagg~art, Michael From: Taggart, Michael Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:14 PM To: 'jay.correia~pa rks.ca.gov'

Subject:

RE: NRHP Dist. Nom. Update: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Hi Jay, Thank you very much for the call and voice message. That all sounds good.

If you or any of the review staff have questions, please don't hesitate to call.

Thanks, Mike From: Taggart, Michael Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:08 AM To: 'jay.correia@parks.ca.gov'

Subject:

NRHP Dist. Noma. Update: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Hi Jay, I wanted to touch base on the Diablo Canyon National Register District nomination update (#75000477; Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay). The nomination was submitted several years ago (before my tenure at PG&E) and I'm hoping to wrap things up soon. Based on my review of the document I can see it needs some work, but would like to have OHP's comments before we spend any more time on it. Before I can get support in place to update the nomination, I will need to gauge the level of effort required.

Please let me know where things stand at your earliest convenience.

Best, Mike MIKE TAGGART, RPA Sr. Cultural Resource Specialist PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 2730 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 220 Sacramento CA 95833 Office: 91 6.923.7047 I Cell: 916.261.6523 1

Taggart, Michael From: Taggart, Michael Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:32 PM To: 'Crain, Amy@Parks'

Subject:

RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Hi Amy, Yes, my consultant completed some fieldwork last year. I have them under contract to revise the nomination this year. We are shooting for the fall of 2015 to submit a revised nomination. Thanks for checking in. I'll give you a heads up before resubmitting.

Best, Mike From: Crain, Amy@Parks [1]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:28 PM To: Taggart, Michael

Subject:

RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Hi Michael, Were you able to complete the fieldwork last year? I'm reviewing open nominations, and realize it has been just over a year since our last email exchange.

Thank you in advance for your update, Amy Amy H. Cramn State Historian II Registration Unit California .State Office of Historic Preservation.

1725 23r Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 PHONE (916) 445-7009 PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amy.Crain@parks.ca.gov From: Taggart, Michael [mailto: MiTi~pge.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 1:48 PM To: Cramn, Amy©Parks

Subject:

RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Hi Amy, 1

Thanks for reaching out. I've been meaning to get back in touch. We have a consultant onboard to revise the nomination; however, it is going to take a fairly significant field effort and incorporation of a lot of new information (based primarily on PG&E-sponsored work on the Pecho Coast over the last six years). Due to the way my budget is structured, this will be a two year effort, with the fieldwork happening this summer and the nomination revision/submission in 2015. It may be for all of us to talk later this year, but we're a ways off right now.

If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to give you a call to discuss.

Best, Mike From: Grain, Amy@Parks [2]

Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 1:38 PM To: Taggart, Michael

Subject:

RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Hi Mike, Since it has been almost five months since we last exchanged emails, would you let me know the status of the nomination? Is there anything I can do to help?

Thank you, Amy Amy H. Grain State Historian II Registration Unit California State Office of Historic Preservation 1725 2 3 rd Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 PHONE (916) 445-7009 PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amy.Crain@parks.ca.gov From: Crain, Amy@Parks Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:54 AM To: 'Taggart, Michael'

Subject:

RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Thank you Mike. I am glad to hear the nomination is stilt active and that you are still the appropriate contact.

I look forward to hearing from you next year, Amy Amy H. Grain State Historian II Registration Unit 2

California State Office of Historic Preservation 1725 23r Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 PHONE (916) 445-7009 PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amv.Crain@Darks.ca.gov From: Taggart, Michael [mailto:MiTi~opge.coml Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:52 AM To." Crain, Amy@Parks

Subject:

RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Hi Amy, Thank you for the additional comments. I am currently working to secure funding to revise the nomination. We hope to submit a revised nomination in 2014. We will be back in touch once things get moving.

Best, Mike From: Crain, Amy@Parks [mailto:Amy.Crain©oarks.ca.ciov1 Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 11:36 AM To: Taggart, Michael

Subject:

RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Hi Mike, As anticipated in our Request for Information letter of April 25, 2013 (attached), several National Register archaeology nominations were forwarded to a contract archaeologist for an in-depth content-based review. The Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Archaeological District nomination was included in that review.

The contractor returned the nomination to us with a cover memo (attached) and an annotated electronic file copy of the nomination (attached). She is in agreement with the additional data needs indicated in the April 25, 2013 letter, and indicates further documentation needed to prepare the nomination for review by the State Historical Resources Commission.

Please let us know if you have questions, and how we can help move the nomination forward.

Sincerely, Amy Crain Amy H. Crain State Historian II Registration Unit California State Office of Historic Preservation 1725 23r Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 PHONE (916) 445-7009 3

PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amy.Crain@ parks.ca.gov From: Crain, Amy@Parks Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:52 PM To:"'Taggart, Michael'

Subject:

RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Thank you for the quick acknowledgement Mike. You might also find helpful National Register Bulletin 36: Guidelinesfor Evaluating and Registering ArchaeologicalProperties. If you don't already have a copy, it is available on line at http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/arch/

Regards, Amy Amy H. Crain State Historian II Registration Unit California State Office of Historic Preservation 1725 23r Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 PHONE (916) 445-7009 PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amy.Craine~parks.ca.gov From: Taggart, Michael [mailto:MiTI~opqe.coml Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:48 PM To: Crain, Amy@Parks

Subject:

RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Hi Amy, Thank you very much for providing these comments. These will be very helpful as we revise the nomination over the coming months. I'm sure I will reach out to you as questions arise.

Best, Mike MIKE TAGGART, RPA Sr. Cultural Resource Specialist PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 2730 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 220 Sacramento CA 95833 Office: 916.923.7047 I Cell: 916.261.6523 From: Crain, Amy©Parks [3]

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:38 PM

To: Taggart, Michael

Subject:

Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Hi Mike, As noted in the attached Request for Information (RFI) letter, following your recent email exchange with Registration Unit Supervisor Jay Correia, I reviewed the Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Archaeological District National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination identified as a Supplement to NRHP listing #75000477.

A hard copy of the letter will go out in Friday morning's mail.

Sincerely, Amy Amy H. Crain State Historian II Registration Unit California State Office of Historic Preservation 1725 23r Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 PHONE (916) 445-7009 PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amy.Crainc~parks.ca.gqov PG&E is committed-to protecting our customers' privacy.

To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/compa ny/privacy/customer!

PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy.

To learn more, please visit http://www.pFge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/

PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy.

To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacv/customer/

5

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Gavernor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1725 2 3*dStreet, Suite 100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100 (916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053 calshpoc~parks.ca.gov www.oh p. parks .ca.gov April 25, 2013 Mike Taggert, RPA Sr. Cultural Resource Specialist Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2730 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 220

• Sacramento, CA 95833 RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Archaeological District Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places Request for Information (RFI)

Dear Mike:

Following your. recent email exchange with Registration Unit Supervisor Jay Correia, I reviewed the above-referenced nomination received in June 2007, identified as a Supplement to NRHP listing #75000477.

The workload of the OHP archaeologists is such that the Registration Unit historians are doing a preliminary technical review to determine which nominations can be forwarded to a contract arc~haeologist for an in-depth content-based review.

Additional work is needed on the nomination to comply with the requirements of the National Park Service (NPS) in accordance with the instructions in National Register Bulletin 16A, How to Complete the National Register Form (Bulletin 16A). Once the nomination is resubmitted we will be pleased to review it in greater detail.

The National Park Service updates the nomination forms every three years, so the forms have been updated twice since the nomination was originally prepared. As you (or the consultant) revise the nomination please consider entering the information on new forms. Current forms are available on our website at http:/lwww.nps.giovlhistoryfnrlpublications/downloadsI201 2 10-900 final.doc.

We would be pleased to assist you if needed in the transfer of the document to the new forms.

New photographs will also be needed, in compliance with' the NPS Photo PolicY, available at http:llwww. nps..qovlhistorylnr/publicationsl/quidancelPhoto Policy final. pdf.

Please submit the revised nomination electronically as a Word document, either on compact disc or via email. This allows us to make minor technical adjustments to the form. When emailing, it can be helpful to send the nomination form as one document, and the Continuation Sheets as one or more separate documents. We have also received documents via various electronic dropbox services if that is convenient for you.

Amending National Register Forms is addressed in Section VI of Bulletin 16A. In particular,

Rancho Canada de Los Osos y Pecho y Lslay_ RFI April 25, 2013 Page 2 of 5 Registration forms may be amended in any of the following ways:

1. Submit continuation sheets with the new information and an explanation of the amendment.

2. Complete a new form that incorporates former documentation, new information, and proposed changes.

3. For boundary changes, provide a form .that documents just the area being added or deleted.

The section can be reviewed in full on pages 71-72 of the hard copy publication or online at

.http:l/www.cr.nps.,qovlnr/publications/bulletinslnrb16A/nrbI6a VI. htm. Once you determine which approach is most appropriate for you - documenting just the new sites or a more comprehensive, nomination that incorporates former and new information - many sections of the nomination can be simplified without repeatedly explaining the different determinations (listed, proposed, "undetermined"). -

It is not necessary or desirable to include the previous nomination or site records as

• Appendices. Cite them as pertinent, with appropriate footnote and bibliographic references, and note their primary location in Section 9.

Please be sure the nomination refers in all regards to the archaeological district and not to a proposed project that may affect the district, either the portion already listed, or the proposed amendment.

1. Name of Property historic name Enter Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Archaeological District.

other names/site number*

Include here the aka reference and site numbers. Remove any explanatory narrative such as "Additional sites proposed" and "Sites determined to be ineligible."

5. Classification Number of Resources within Property; Resources must be classified as Contributing or Noncontributing. Undetermined is not an option, and will not be accepte~d by the National Park Service.

Number of contributingresources previously listed in the National Register At the most enter '.17" and the previous listing number. It is not necessary or. appropriate to list the individual resources by site number here.

Name of related multiple property listing Enter N/A.

7. Description Narrative Description This section needs to describe the physical appearance Of the site - how it looks at present, how it likely looked during the period of significance, and referencing the reason(s) for those

Rancho Canada de Los Osos y Pecho y Islay_ RFI April 25, 2013 Page 3 of 5 changes in appearance. There must be correlation with Section 5, describing the Contributing and noncontributing resources counted in the table. Per Bulletin 16A, this section should also include a discussion of integrity.

Please note that components of a district are resources. Components of a site are features.

"Elements" is an inconclusive and vague term that tends to be used inconsistentlY.

8. Statement of Sicqnificance Periodof Significance Significant Dates Please review Bulletin 16A for assistahce. As presented they appear to be reversed.

CulturalAffiliation If possible, please include the name commonly used to identify the Cultural group, as in the Bulletin 16A example, Cochise Red Ochra Hopewell Paleo-lndianMississippianLate Archaic Summary Paragraph This introductory paragraph is currently missing. Per Bulletin 16A, Identify the following items:.

• Specific associations or characteristics through which the property has acquired ,significance, including historic events, activities, persons, physical

• features, artistic qualities, architectural styles, and archeological evidence that represent the historic contexts within Which the property is important to the history of the local, community, the State, or the nation.

• specific ways the property meets the qualifying criterion and has contributed to

• each area of significance entered, on the form.

• Role of any important persons or cultural affiliations entered on the form.

• Ways the property meets the special standards for any criteria considerations marked on the form.

Narrative Statement of Significance .

This section currently appears to be more table than narrative. Where are the Research Questions required for nominations submitted under Criterion. D? See the Bulletin 16A guidelines at http:/lwww.cr. nps.ciovlnr/publicationslbullet ins/n rb1I6Nnrb1I6a Ill. htm#statement

9. Major Bibliogiraphical References Primarylocation of additionaldata Add X Federal agency Additional Documentation ..

Continuation Sheets All additional documentation needs to be submitted on Continuation Sheets. You can either use the continuous text pages Of the revised application form, or the stand alone pages that are available from both the NPS and OHP Websites. If you use the older sheets, the Section is Additional Documentation and page numbering (in the header) begins with 1..,

Rancho Canada de Los Osos y Pecho y Islay_ RFI April 25, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Items should be labeled as Figures. Description and source can be indicated on each page, or an Index of Figures can be presented, similar to the Photograph Log.

The nomination was also reviewed by State Parks.Archaeologist and OHP intern Steve Hilton.

He offered these comments to assist in revision of the nomination to meet NPS requirements:

Section 7- The narrativedescription summary paragraphshould be a succinct paragraphabout the district. Paint a picture of the districtin one paragraph. This summary paragraphpoints out presenvation and impacts to sites, but does not even mention that the district includes X number of sites total, of which x are village sites, x are significant resource procurementsites, x are x, and so on. The summary paragraph should introduce the district to the reader. The first and last sentences,are fine, just fill in two or three more specific~ally about the district.

The remainderof Section 7 needs to also focus on the district itself. The overall Environmental Setting section is appropriate for a compliance report~,but for a nomination it needs to focus on the sites in the district. There is no need to repeat the entire culture history of the central coast that focuses on Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz and Monterrey Counties. All discussion about chronology should be district focused. E.g. these sites representX period or the Paleo-lndianPeriod (12, 000-8.500 B. P.) is representedby x sites within the district. The ethnographicsection should be a paragraphfocused on the ethnographicland use of the district, or the natural resources used by Native Americans within the district itself. The present section is a long discussion about Central California land use patterns.

The Archaeological Chronology discusses each archaeologicalperiod and lists sites that are representativesof these periods. However, it is unclearif any of the listed representativesites are located within the nominated district. Any discussion about the archaeologicalchronology should focus on the sites within the district. The discussion of Obispeno Chumash includes descriptions of the ethnographiclifeways and styles of the Obispeno Chumash. In these paragraphsit is stated on more than one occasion that~archaeologicalevidence suggests that....Orthat archaeologicalevidence supports....It is unclear if the archaeologicalevidence used within these examples is

• located within the district, or are located at some other location within San Luis Obispo County. Relate this section,to the proposed district in Section 8. Please repeat the

• header across all pages of Table 7.2.

The Period of significance (Section 8) is from +12,000-150 Years BP, it should be noted what sites are rePresentativesof each period since that is the way it is introduced. It is also imperative while discussing each period in Section 7, that a representativesite of the Paleo-lndianperiod is highlighted,,as it is unclearfrom the nomination if any such site representingthis early period is within the district.

Section 8- See NRB 16A for guidance. The period of significance should be one or more time periods,,broken down into sections that importantfor relating the significance of the site to the reader. The entire period must be significant. In this case the periodof significance as reportedis 12,000+ B.P. to 150 B.P. However you must demonstrate

Rancho Canada de Los Oso~s y Pecho y Islay_ RFI April 25, 2013 Page 5 of 5 why these sites are significantfor this period of time in the Narrative Statement of Significance.

This section is better at representingthe district. However the discussion of Radiocarbon dates state that the dates are from 10,000 +1-140 through 650 +1-90 years. There are no later radiocarbondates, so how is the Historic Period (500-150BP) represented?It is unclear from the listing of sites and radiocarbondates. There is also little to no correlationbetween the radiocarbondates, type sites, and significance.

Section 10- The Verbal boundary description should be more specific. The district boundaries need to be four or more points that delineate the complete district. Logically define the district, not individual sites within the district. The UTMs provided are for sites not the district. The boundary description needs to discuss what these boundaries are and why were they chosen to delineate the district. Information about lack of access to property, or other things that affected the boundaries of the district need to be discussed.

[Please note that Steve may not have been aware that ownership is insufficient justification to alter the boundaries. "Guidelines for Selecting Boundaries" in Bulletin 16A is available at http :llwww.np~s..qovlhistorylnr/publicationslbulletins/nrb1 6alnrb1 6a IllI.ht..m#Qeographical National Register staff discourage the creation of artificial boundaries that cannot be historically justified.]

Thank you for your attention to these many details. If you have questions, contact me at acrainc~parks.ca.pov. We look forward to reviewing the revised application.

Sincerely, State Historian II