4.4 Cultural Resources

Transcription

1 Introduction This chapter discusses the effects of the proposed project with respect to cultural resource impacts from the proposed land use activities. The major source used in this analysis is the recirculated IS/MND (SCH # ) prepared for this project earlier (Appendix B). Methods Efforts to identify cultural resources located within or adjacent to the project area consisted of conducting a records search, contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and Native American representatives, and conducting an intensive pedestrian cultural resources survey of the proposed project area. Dates and information related to these methods are located in the recirculated IS/MND, Appendix B of this document. Environmental Setting Prehistoric Setting The proposed project area is located within the Northern Sierra Region, as defined by Moratto (2004). By 1000 B.C., the western slope of the Sierra Nevada range was occupied by groups who exhibited both high Sierra and Central Valley traits. Whether the original populations came from the east or the west is unknown. By A.D. 1500, the architecture, settlement patterns, and material culture of the Central Valley were found throughout the foothills. When Euro-Americans first made their way into the proposed project vicinity, it was occupied by a group known as the Nisenan, or Southern Maidu. The ethnographic boundaries of the Nisenan encompass the Yuba and American river drainages. The Nisenan occupied permanent settlements from which specific task groups set out to hunt and collect plant resources. The resource base of the Hill Nisenan consisted primarily of acorn and game. The acorn crop from the blue oak (Quercus douglasii) and black oaks (Quercus kelloggii) was so carefully managed that it served as the equivalent of agriculture and could be stored against winter shortfalls in resource abundance. Nisenan settlement locations depended primarily on elevation, exposure, and proximity to water and other resources. Permanent villages usually were located on low rises along major watercourses. Village size ranged from three houses to up to 40 or 50. (Wilson and Towne 1978.) DS Canal Flume Replacement Project 4.4-1

2 The Hill Nisenan were little affected by the Euro-American occupation of California until the Gold Rush, which brought prospectors from around the world into their territory. Miners then occupied most of the traditional camp locations along rivers and streams. Destruction of their villages and persecution reduced their numbers, and by the late 1930s, few Nisenan remained who could recall the times before Euro-American contact. Today, there are several federally recognized Maidu tribes that are active in community decision-making and planning. (Wilson and Towne 1978.) Historic Setting Nevada County The proposed project area is located in Nevada County, California, southeast of Nevada City, running south to southwest from Red Dog Road to SR 20/49. Nevada County was created from portions of Yuba County by an act of the California Legislature in The Legislature created the county largely to relieve the government of Yuba County from the troubles caused by the large influx of miners entering the region at the time. The county derives its name from its capital city, Nevada City, where the county seat was located in 1851 (Kyle 1990:239). Mining The first ditches in the county were constructed during the Gold Rush for mining purposes. These ditches aimed to bring water to mining claims that were not located near rivers or lakes. The first two were constructed in 1850 and conveyed small amounts of water to mining claims at Coyote Hill and Phelps Hill. Larger and more complex ditches and canals were constructed after that. Ultimately, construction reached its peak during the hydraulic mining period, when reservoirs and miles of ditches and flumes were constructed to convey large quantities of water to hydraulic mining operations, including the operation at North Bloomfield, one of the largest such operations in the state (Nevada City Nugget 1951:78; Jackson 1967:10 11; Kyle 1990:247). Agriculture Although mining was the mainstay of the county for much of the county s history, farming was attempted as early as In those days, most farming took place near streams, and it appears that major irrigation projects were not undertaken to support agricultural pursuits. In the subsequent decades, as farming expanded and grains, peaches, grapes, vegetables, and other crops were planted, irrigation projects were undertaken, and canals and ditches were constructed to irrigate the crops. In the 1890s, orchards could be irrigated in nearly every part of the county for as little as 5 dollars per acre. By the 20th DS Canal Flume Replacement Project 4.4-2

3 century, many of the ditches and flumes created for mining were adapted for the purposes of irrigating orchards and gardens. It was during this period that an engineer, Frederick Tibbetts, designed the DS canal and flumes for the purposes of irrigation. The first water flow records for the canal date to (Comstock 2000:12; Kyle 1990:241). Existing Conditions The proposed project is located in unincorporated Nevada County, southeast of Nevada City (Figure 1-1). Most of the proposed project construction sites occur within existing easements that are on private property near Banner Mountain Trail Road, Gracie Road, Big Blue Road, Gold Flat Road, and Apple Orchard Road, as shown in Figure 1-3. New easements may be required at some locations, to which the unnecessary portions would be quit-claimed to the owners. Temporary construction access also may be required. Regulatory Setting This section describes the federal, state, and local regulations that would apply to the proposed project. Federal National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 The NHPA of 1966 requires that the federal government list significant historic resources on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Federal agencies must consult the NRHP when planning to undertake or grant approval through permits for a project. Prior to the issuance of any license or implementation of any project, the federal agency must consider the effects of a project or license on any historical buildings, sites, structures, or objects that are included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the NRHP (16 U.S. Code 470(f)). This typically includes consultation with the federal agency responsible for the undertaking; the state historic preservation officer (SHPO); local Native American groups and individuals; local and state historical societies and organizations; and relevant archival sources, including the appropriate facility of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). State California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires that public or private projects financed or approved by public agencies be assessed to determine the effects of the projects on historical resources. Historical resources include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or DS Canal Flume Replacement Project 4.4-3

4 districts, each of which may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. CEQA states that, if implementation of a project would result in significant effects on historical resources, alternative plans or mitigation measures must be considered; however, only significant historical resources need to be addressed (14 CCR and ). Therefore, before impacts and mitigation measures can be identified, the significance of historical resources must be determined. The State CEQA Guidelines define three ways that a property may qualify as a significant historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review: the resource is listed in or is determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); the resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section (k) of the Public Resources Code (PRC), or is identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section (g), unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; or the lead agency determines the resource to be significant, as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record (14 CCR [a]). Each of these ways of qualifying as a significant historical resource for the purpose of CEQA is related to the criteria used to determine a resource s eligibility for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section (k), , and [g]). A historical resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it: is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California s history and cultural heritage; is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Properties that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP are considered eligible for listing in the CRHR and therefore also are significant historical resources for the purpose of CEQA (PRC Section [d][1]). DS Canal Flume Replacement Project 4.4-4

5 Local Nevada County In addition to federal and state legislation, the County sets out goals, objectives, and policies in its general plan pertaining to historic and cultural resources within the county, as identified below (Nevada County 1996:Volume I). Goal 19.1: Identify and protect and, where economically feasible, restore significant archeological and historic resources. Objective 19.1: Encourage the inventory, protection, and interpretation of the cultural heritage of Nevada County, including historical and archaeological landscapes, sites, buildings, features, and artifacts. Action Policy 19.1: Enact a Cultural Resources Ordinance to ensure effective preservation, protection, and management of cultural resources. Such an ordinance might include the identification and preservation of historical, cultural, and architecturally significant sites and resources within Nevada County. The establishment of a county listing of significant cultural resources could be part of a Cultural Resources Ordinance. The Cultural Resources Ordinance could also specify the mitigation procedures to be followed once a resource has been identified and determined to be significant. Policy 19.4: Incorporate cultural and historic resource management standards in the Comprehensive Site Development Standards, for use in project review of all discretionary project permits. These standards shall provide for the use of clustering and restricting building sites as techniques for the preservation of significant resources. Policy 19.6: Require all applications for discretionary project permits, and all applications for ministerial project permits, except single family residents, on individual lots, shall be accompanied by a Site Sensitivity Literature Review, prepared by a qualified archaeologist or entity. Where review indicates significant archaeological or historical sites or artifacts are, or are likely, present, on-site field review shall be required. If a site or artifacts are discovered, the find shall be evaluated and potential significance determined. If significant cultural resources may be directly or indirectly impacted by proposed development, appropriate mitigation shall be developed and implemented in accordance with CEQA standards, including Appendix K, prior to onset of ground disturbance. Avoidance of significant cultural resources shall be considered the mitigation priority. Excavation of such resources shall be considered only as a last resort when sufficient planning flexibility does not permit avoidance. On-site field review, evaluation of significance, and development of mitigation measures, as identified above, shall be performed by a qualified professional archaeologist DS Canal Flume Replacement Project 4.4-5

6 Objective 19.3: Include in the development review process consideration of historic, cultural, and Native American concerns and values. Policy 19.7: Cooperate with local historical societies and the Native American Indian community to protect significant historical, cultural, and archaeological artifacts, improve access to and interpretation of unrestricted resources and archaeological history by involving them in the development review process. Impact Discussion This section discusses the approach and methodology used to assess the impacts of the proposed project; thresholds used to determine whether an impact would be significant; discussions of individual impacts relative to the thresholds; mitigation measures to minimize, avoid, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for significant impacts; and the overall significance of impacts with mitigation incorporated. Thresholds of Significance Criteria for determining the significance of impacts related to land use and planning are based on criteria set forth in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR et seq.). The proposed project would cause a significant impact on land use if it would: cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 14 CCR ; cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in 14 CCR ; directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Approach and Methodology The CEQA impact analysis for cultural resources is based upon a review of pertinent literature, a records search at the California Information Center in Sacramento, and a field trip to the project site. During the review of the IS/MND and the recirculated IS/MND previously prepared for this project (Appendix B), copies of those documents were sent to the State Office of Historic Preservation for its review and comment. These letters and responses, if received, are in the accompanying Appendix B. In addition, a cultural resources inventory and DS Canal Flume Replacement Project 4.4-6

7 evaluation report was written to describe the flumes and their relative level of historic significance. The thresholds described above were applied to the findings of these investigations and consultations to determine whether the project would result in a significant effect on cultural resources. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact CR-1: Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource as Defined in 14 CCR (No Impact) As part of the field survey, the DS Canal and eight flumes (components of the canal) were examined for their historical significance. The canal and flumes date to (Nevada Irrigation District 1992). The canal is part of the Deer Creek system and initially was constructed as an irrigation source for agriculture in the area. Currently, the canal provides water to Nevada City and Grass Valley. Originally, the DS canal included 24 flumes. Over time, many of the flumes were replaced with pipes. The canal is not historically significant, as it is one of several in the region constructed for irrigation purposes in the early 20th century. Since its construction, the canal has undergone continual maintenance in the form of scouring and other improvements, which has caused a loss of integrity to the resource. In addition, removal/ replacement of the flumes, key components of the canal system, has diminished the integrity of the resource. Because of a lack of historical significance, as well as a loss of integrity, the canal and flumes are not a significant cultural resource for the purposes of CEQA. The evaluation report for the flumes, Cultural Resource Inventory and Evaluation Report for the DS Canal Flume Replacement Project, Nevada County, California, is included in Appendix B of this EIR, the recirculated IS/MND. Also in the project vicinity, at the DS Canal crossing at Gracie Road, are three mine shafts, part of the Glencoe quartz mine, which were recorded west to east as the Arbogast Shaft, the Old Glencoe Shaft and Point of Discovery, and Double Compartment Shaft (Mineral Survey No. 4099, October 2, 1897, as cited in Holdrege & Kull 2008). No ore shoots of economic importance were discovered at the Glencoe mine, and this mine went idle in (California State Mining Bureau 1918 as cited in Holdrege & Kull 2008.) These mine shafts are not historically significant because they are of a type ubiquitous in the region and hold no particular historic value. Accordingly, there are no historical resources in the proposed project area for the purposes of CEQA. There would be no impact. Impact CR-2: Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource as Defined in 14 CCR (Less than Significant with Mitigation) No archaeological resources were identified or previously recorded in the project area. However, the potential exists for buried archaeological resources to be inadvertently unearthed during project construction, which would be a significant DS Canal Flume Replacement Project 4.4-7

8 impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Implement Plan to Address Discovery of Unanticipated Buried Cultural or Paleontological Resources If buried cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, midden deposits, historic debris, building foundations, human bone, or paleontological resources, are inadvertently discovered during grounddisturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with NID and other appropriate agencies. Impact CR-3: Direct or Indirect Destruction of a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature (Less than Significant with Mitigation) No paleontological resources were observed or appear likely to be present. It is possible that remains are buried and would be unearthed during construction activities, though this is unlikely. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, described above, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact CR-4: Disturbance of Any Human Remains, Including Those Interred outside of Formal Cemeteries (Less than Significant with Mitigation) No known human remains are located within the project area. However, it is possible that construction activities would result in the discovery of human remains. This potential impact is considered significant. The impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2. Mitigation Measure CR-2: Implement Plan to Address Discovery of Human Remains If remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction, it will be necessary to comply with state laws concerning the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC. If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: the Nevada County coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and if the remains are of Native American origin: the most likely descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or person DS Canal Flume Replacement Project 4.4-8

9 responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC , or the NAHC has been unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100) and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (California Health and Safety Code Section 7052). California Health and Safety Code Section requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC. DS Canal Flume Replacement Project 4.4-9

10