ML16050A297
| 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:
|
| References | |
| DCL-15-142, CAC MF4019, CAC MF4020 | |
| Download: ML16050A297 (12) | |
Text
Tagg~art, MichaelFrom: Taggart, MichaelSent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:14 PMTo: 'jay.correia~pa rks.ca.gov'Subject: RE: NRHP Dist. Nom. Update: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayHi 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,MikeFrom: Taggart, MichaelSent: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:08 AMTo: 'jay.correia@parks.ca.gov'Subject: NRHP Dist. Noma. Update: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayHi Jay,I wanted to touch base on the Diablo Canyon National Register District nomination update (#75000477; Rancho Canadade los Osos y Pecho y Islay). The nomination was submitted several years ago (before my tenure at PG&E) and I'mhoping to wrap things up soon. Based on my review of the document I can see it needs some work, but would like tohave OHP's comments before we spend any more time on it. Before I can get support in place to update thenomination, I will need to gauge the level of effort required.Please let me know where things stand at your earliest convenience.Best,MikeMIKE TAGGART, RPASr. Cultural Resource SpecialistPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY2730 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 220Sacramento CA 95833Office: 91 6.923.7047 I Cell: 916.261.65231 Taggart, MichaelFrom: Taggart, MichaelSent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:32 PMTo: 'Crain, Amy@Parks'Subject: RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayHi Amy,Yes, my consultant completed some fieldwork last year. I have them under contract to revise the nomination thisyear. We are shooting for the fall of 2015 to submit a revised nomination. Thanks for checking in. I'll give you a headsup before resubmitting.Best,MikeFrom: Crain, Amy@Parks [1]Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:28 PMTo: Taggart, MichaelSubject: RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayHi Michael,Were you able to complete the fieldwork last year? I'm reviewing open nominations, and realize it has been just over ayear since our last email exchange.Thank you in advance for your update,AmyAmy H. CramnState Historian IIRegistration UnitCalifornia .State Office of Historic Preservation.1725 23r Street, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95816-7100PHONE (916) 445-7009PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amy.Crain@parks.ca.govFrom: Taggart, Michael [mailto: MiTi~pge.com]Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 1:48 PMTo: Cramn, Amy©ParksSubject: RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayHi Amy,1 Thanks for reaching out. I've been meaning to get back in touch. We have a consultant onboard to revise thenomination; 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 isstructured, this will be a two year effort, with the fieldwork happening this summer and the nominationrevision/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,MikeFrom: Grain, Amy@Parks [2]Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 1:38 PMTo: Taggart, MichaelSubject: RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayHi Mike,Since it has been almost five months since we last exchanged emails, would you let me know the status of thenomination? Is there anything I can do to help?Thank you,AmyAmy H. GrainState Historian IIRegistration UnitCalifornia State Office of Historic Preservation1725 23rd Street, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95816-7100PHONE (916) 445-7009PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amy.Crain@parks.ca.govFrom: Crain, Amy@ParksSent: Monday, December 16, 2013 9:54 AMTo: 'Taggart, Michael'Subject: RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayThank 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,AmyAmy H. GrainState Historian IIRegistration Unit2 California State Office of Historic Preservation1725 23r Street, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95816-7100PHONE (916) 445-7009PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amv.Crain@Darks.ca.govFrom: Taggart, Michael Monday, December 16, 2013 9:52 AMTo." Crain, Amy@ParksSubject: RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayH i Amy,Thank you for the additional comments. I am currently working to secure funding to revise the nomination. We hope tosubmit a revised nomination in 2014. We will be back in touch once things get moving.Best,MikeFrom: Crain, Amy@Parks [mailto:Amy.Crain©oarks.ca.ciov1Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 11:36 AMTo: Taggart, MichaelSubject: RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayHi Mike,As anticipated in our Request for Information letter of April 25, 2013 (attached), several National Register archaeologynominations were forwarded to a contract archaeologist for an in-depth content-based review. The Rancho Canada delos 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 thenomination (attached). She is in agreement with the additional data needs indicated in the April 25, 2013 letter, andindicates further documentation needed to prepare the nomination for review by the State Historical ResourcesCommission.Please let us know if you have questions, and how we can help move the nomination forward.Sincerely,Amy CrainAmy H. CrainState Historian IIRegistration UnitCalifornia State Office of Historic Preservation1725 23r Street, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95816-7100PHONE (916) 445-70093 PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amy.Crain@ parks.ca.govFrom: Crain, Amy@ParksSent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:52 PMTo:" 'Taggart, Michael'Subject: RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayThank you for the quick acknowledgement Mike. You might also find helpful National Register Bulletin 36: Guidelines forEvaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties. If you don't already have a copy, it is available on line athttp://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/arch/Regards,AmyAmy H. CrainState Historian IIRegistration UnitCalifornia State Office of Historic Preservation1725 23r Street, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95816-7100PHONE (916) 445-7009PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amy.Craine~parks.ca.govFrom: Taggart, Michael [mailto:MiTI~opqe.comlSent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:48 PMTo: Crain, Amy@ParksSubject: RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayHi Amy,Thank you very much for providing these comments. These will be very helpful as we revise the nomination over thecoming months. I'm sure I will reach out to you as questions arise.Best,MikeMIKE TAGGART, RPASr. Cultural Resource SpecialistPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY2730 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 220Sacramento CA 95833Office: 916.923.7047 I Cell: 916.261.6523From: Crain, Amy©Parks [mailto:Amy.Crain~parks.ca.qiovSent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:38 PM To: Taggart, MichaelSubject: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y IslayHi Mike,As noted in the attached Request for Information (RFI) letter, following your recent email exchange with RegistrationUnit Supervisor Jay Correia, I reviewed the Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Archaeological District NationalRegister 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,AmyAmy H. CrainState Historian IIRegistration UnitCalifornia State Office of Historic Preservation1725 23r Street, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95816-7100PHONE (916) 445-7009PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY Amy.Crainc~parks.ca.gqovPG&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., GavernorOFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATIONDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION1725 2Street, Suite 100SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100(916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053calshpoc~parks.ca.govwww.oh p. parks .ca.govApril 25, 2013Mike Taggert, RPASr. Cultural Resource SpecialistPacific Gas and Electric Company2730 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 220*Sacramento, CA 95833RE: Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Archaeological DistrictNomination to the National Register of Historic PlacesRequest for Information (RFI)Dear Mike:Following your. recent email exchange with Registration Unit Supervisor Jay Correia, Ireviewed the above-referenced nomination received in June 2007, identified as a Supplementto NRHP listing #75000477.The workload of the OHP archaeologists is such that the Registration Unit historians are doinga preliminary technical review to determine which nominations can be forwarded to a contractarc~haeologist for an in-depth content-based review.Additional work is needed on the nomination to comply with the requirements of the NationalPark Service (NPS) in accordance with the instructions in National Register Bulletin 16A, Howto Complete the National Register Form (Bulletin 1 6A). Once the nomination is resubmitted wewill be pleased to review it in greater detail.The National Park Service updates the nomination forms every three years, so the forms havebeen 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 formsare 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 athttp:llwww. nps..qovlhistorylnr/publicationsl/quidancelPhoto Policy final. pdf.Please submit the revised nomination electronically as a Word document, either on compactdisc or via email. This allows us to make minor technical adjustments to the form. Whenemailing, it can be helpful to send the nomination form as one document, and the ContinuationSheets as one or more separate documents. We have also received documents via variouselectronic 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_ RFIApril 25, 2013Page 2 of 5Registration forms may be amended in any of the following ways:1. Submit continuation sheets with the new information and an explanation of theamendment.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 addedor 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 determinewhich approach is most appropriate for you -documenting just the new sites or a morecomprehensive, nomination that incorporates former and new information -many sections ofthe 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 aproposed project that may affect the district, either the portion already listed, or the proposedamendment.1. Name of Propertyhistoric nameEnter 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. ClassificationNumber of Resources within Property;Resources must be classified as Contributing or Noncontributing. Undetermined is not anoption, and will not be accepte~d by the National Park Service.Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National RegisterAt the most enter '.17" and the previous listing number. It is not necessary or. appropriate to listthe individual resources by site number here.Name of related multiple property listingEnter N/A.7. DescriptionNarrative DescriptionThis 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_ RFIApril 25, 2013Page 3 of 5changes in appearance. There must be correlation with Section 5, describing the Contributingand noncontributing resources counted in the table. Per Bulletin 16A, this section should alsoinclude 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 SicqnificancePeriod of SignificanceSignificant DatesPlease review Bulletin 16A for assistahce. As presented they appear to be reversed.Cultural AffiliationIf possible, please include the name commonly used to identify the Cultural group, as in theBulletin 16A example,Cochise Red Ochra Hopewell Paleo-lndian Mississippian Late ArchaicSummary ParagraphThis introductory paragraph is currently missing. Per Bulletin 16A,Identify the following items:.*Specific associations or characteristics through which the property hasacquired ,significance, including historic events, activities, persons, physical* features, artistic qualities, architectural styles, and archeological evidence thatrepresent the historic contexts within Which the property is important to thehistory 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 considerationsmarked on the form.Narrative Statement of Significance .This section currently appears to be more table than narrative. Where are the ResearchQuestions required for nominations submitted under Criterion. D? See the Bulletin 16Aguidelines at http:/lwww.cr. nps.ciovlnr/publicationslbullet ins/n rb1I6Nnrb1I6a Ill. htm#statement9. Major Bibliogiraphical ReferencesPrimary location of additional dataAdd X Federal agencyAdditional Documentation ..Continuation SheetsAll additional documentation needs to be submitted on Continuation Sheets. You can eitheruse the continuous text pages Of the revised application form, or the stand alone pages thatare available from both the NPS and OHP Websites. If you use the older sheets, the Section isAdditional Documentation and page numbering (in the header) begins with 1..,
Rancho Canada de Los Osos y Pecho y Islay_ RFIApril 25, 2013Page 4 of 5Items should be labeled as Figures. Description and source can be indicated on each page, oran 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 narrative description summary paragraph should be a succinctparagraph about the district. Paint a picture of the district in one paragraph. Thissummary paragraph points out presenvation and impacts to sites, but does not evenmention that the district includes X number of sites total, of which x are village sites, xare significant resource procurement sites, x are x, and so on. The summary paragraphshould introduce the district to the reader. The first and last sentences, are fine, just fillin two or three more specific~ally about the district.The remainder of Section 7 needs to also focus on the district itself. The overallEnvironmental Setting section is appropriate for a compliance report~, but for anomination it needs to focus on the sites in the district. There is no need to repeat theentire culture history of the central coast that focuses on Santa Barbara, San LuisObispo, Santa Cruz and Monterrey Counties. All discussion about chronology should bedistrict focused. E.g. these sites represent X period or the Paleo-lndian Period (12, 000-8.500 B. P.) is represented by x sites within the district. The ethnographic section shouldbe a paragraph focused on the ethnographic land use of the district, or the naturalresources used by Native Americans within the district itself. The present section is along discussion about Central California land use patterns.The Archaeological Chronology discusses each archaeological period and lists sitesthat are representatives of these periods. However, it is unclear if any of the listedrepresentative sites are located within the nominated district. Any discussion about thearchaeological chronology should focus on the sites within the district. The discussionof Obispeno Chumash includes descriptions of the ethnographic lifeways and styles ofthe Obispeno Chumash. In these paragraphs it is stated on more than one occasionthat~archaeological evidence suggests that....Or that archaeological evidencesupports....It is unclear if the archaeological evidence used within these examples is*located within the district, or are located at some other location within San Luis ObispoCounty. 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 notedwhat sites are rePresentatives of each period since that is the way it is introduced. It isalso imperative while discussing each period in Section 7, that a representative site ofthe Paleo-lndian period is highlighted,, as it is unclear from the nomination if any suchsite representing this early period is within the district.Section 8- See NRB 1 6A for guidance. The period of significance should be one ormore time periods, ,broken down into sections that important for relating the significanceof the site to the reader. The entire period must be significant. In this case the period ofsignificance as reported is 12,000+ B.P. to 150 B.P. However you must demonstrate Rancho Canada de Los Oso~s y Pecho y Islay_ RFIApril 25, 2013Page 5 of 5why these sites are significant for this period of time in the Narrative Statement ofSignificance.This section is better at representing the district. However the discussion ofRadiocarbon dates state that the dates are from 10,000 +1-140 through 650 +1-90years. There are no later radiocarbon dates, so how is the Historic Period (500-150BP)represented? It is unclear from the listing of sites and radiocarbon dates. There is alsolittle to no correlation between the radiocarbon dates, type sites, and significance.Section 10- The Verbal boundary description should be more specific. The districtboundaries need to be four or more points that delineate the complete district. Logicallydefine the district, not individual sites within the district. The UTMs provided are for sitesnot the district. The boundary description needs to discuss what these boundaries areand why were they chosen to delineate the district. Information about lack of access toproperty, or other things that affected the boundaries of the district need to bediscussed.[Please note that Steve may not have been aware that ownership is insufficientjustification to alter the boundaries. "Guidelines for Selecting Boundaries" in Bulletin16A is available athttp :llwww.np~s..qovlhistorylnr/publicationslbulletins/nrb1 6alnrb1 6a IllI.ht..m#QeographicalNational Register staff discourage the creation of artificial boundaries that cannot behistorically justified.]Thank you for your attention to these many details. If you have questions, contact me atacrainc~parks.ca.pov. We look forward to reviewing the revised application.Sincerely,State Historian II